Retrieve domain details such as expiration, renewal state, name servers, registrant, and renewal toggle status to assess management needs.
Get the details of a domain name: expiration, renewal state, name servers, registrant and whether renewal can be toggled.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| domain_name | Yes | The domain name, e.g. 'example.be' |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds value by specifying the exact fields returned, which is beyond the annotation. It doesn't contradict any annotations.
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?
A single sentence that is front-loaded with the primary purpose and then lists the returned details. No wasted words.
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 simple read-only get with one parameter, the description is complete: it states what the tool does and what details it returns. It doesn't describe error behavior, but given the simplicity and annotations, it's sufficient.
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 schema fully describes domain_name with an example ('example.be'). The description does not add any parameter-specific information beyond what the schema provides, which is acceptable given the schema coverage is 100%.
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 clearly states the action ('Get the details') and the resource ('a domain name'), and enumerates the specific fields returned (expiration, renewal state, name servers, registrant, renewal toggle). This distinguishes it from combell_domains_list (which lists domains) and from mutation tools like combell_domains_set_renew.
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 makes it clear that this is for retrieving details of a single, specific domain (requires domain_name). It doesn't explicitly name alternatives, but the verb 'get' and the field list imply it's for detailed inspection, not for listing or modifying. It could benefit from explicitly contrasting with combell_domains_list, but the context is clear.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.