Retrieve domain names from a Combell account with their expiration dates and renewal states. Use pagination to control the number of returned items.
List the domain names on your Combell account with their expiration date and renewal state.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| skip | No | Number of items to skip (default 0) | |
| take | No | Number of items to return (the API may return fewer) |
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, covering the safety profile. The description adds the return fields (expiration date, renewal state) but does not mention pagination limits or behavior beyond what the schema already documents for skip/take. Since annotations carry the main burden, a 3 is appropriate.
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, clear sentence that states the action, scope, and key return fields. No unnecessary words or redundancy. The information is front-loaded and immediately actionable.
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 list tool with annotations covering safety and schema covering parameters, the description is nearly complete. It tells the agent what the list contains (domains with expiration and renewal state). No output schema exists, but the description provides enough return context. Pagination is covered by schema.
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?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so both parameters (skip and take) are fully documented in the schema. The description does not add additional meaning to the parameters, but it does clarify the purpose of the returned list. Baseline 3 is correct when the schema handles parameter documentation.
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 (List), the resource (domain names on your Combell account), and the specific fields returned (expiration date and renewal state). This distinguishes it from siblings like combell_domains_get (single domain) and combell_domains_register (creation).
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 provides clear context: it lists all domains on the account. While it doesn't explicitly name alternatives or exclusion criteria, the sibling tools (e.g., combell_domains_get) make it obvious that this is for bulk listing. The scope is unambiguous.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.