list_domainsRetrieve every domain name on your MXroute account in one call. Use it to inventory hosted domains, then fetch single-domain details with get_domain.
Lists all domains on the account. Returns an array of domain names, e.g. ["example.com", "mydomain.org"]. Use get_domain for the details of a single domain.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, and an output schema exists, so the description's return-shape sentence adds limited new information. It does not add useful behavioral context such as result volume, ordering, or pagination for accounts with many domains.
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?
Three short sentences, front-loaded with the core action, with no filler. The example array partially duplicates the output schema, which is mildly redundant but harmless for a simple list tool.
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?
For a zero-parameter read-only list tool backed by full annotations and an output schema, the description covers purpose, return shape, and sibling routing. Nothing an agent needs in order to select and call it is missing.
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 takes zero parameters, so the baseline is 4; there is nothing parameter-wise the description needs to explain and it correctly says nothing about arguments.
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 states a specific verb and resource ("Lists all domains on the account") and immediately distinguishes the tool from its detail-oriented sibling get_domain, so an agent can tell the two apart without opening either schema.
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?
It explicitly names the alternative ("Use get_domain for the details of a single domain"), giving a clear routing rule. It does not mention other list-style siblings such as list_domain_pointers or state a when-not condition, so it falls just short of full when/when-not coverage.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.