List all domains on a cPanel account, including the main domain, addon domains, subdomains, and parked domains, to review your hosting configuration.
List all domains on the account (main, addon, sub, parked)
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v2.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must convey the behavioral profile. It clearly states the scope (all domains on the account) and enumerates the types included. However, it does not disclose the return format, pagination, or any potential operational nuances, so it only partially carries the burden.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence of minimal length that front-loads the action and resource. Every word adds value, and there is no filler or redundant information.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the low complexity (no parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is mostly complete. It specifies the exact scope and types of domains covered. The main gap is the absence of any detail about the returned data structure, but for a simple list operation this is a minor omission.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has zero parameters, and the schema has no properties, meaning the schema description coverage is effectively complete. With no parameters to explain, the description does not need to add parameter-level detail. Per the rubric, a baseline of 4 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb ('List') and clearly identifies the resource ('all domains on the account') with an explicit enumeration of domain types (main, addon, sub, parked). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_subdomains, list_addon_domains, and list_parked_domains by covering all types at once.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies that this tool should be used when you need all domain types together, but it does not explicitly state when to prefer this over the more specific sibling tools or provide any exclusionary guidance. No alternatives are named.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.