get-domainRetrieve DNS records and verification status for a specific domain by ID to check configuration and confirm ownership.
Retrieve information about a specific domain including DNS records and verification status.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | The domain ID (sd_xxx format or numeric ID). |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v2.0.3Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations, so the description must carry the behavioral load. 'Retrieve' signals a read-only, non-mutating operation and it discloses the return content (DNS records, verification status), which is genuinely useful. It says nothing about permissions/scopes, what happens for a non-existent or unverified domain, or error behavior.
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 efficient sentence with the resource and return content front-loaded. No filler, though it is short enough that more routing guidance could have been added without bloat.
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 one-parameter read with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description is adequate but thin: an agent still doesn't know the distinction from list-domains/verify-domain nor what a failed lookup returns. No output schema exists, so return-shape disclosure is at least partially needed and only partially given.
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% and the single id parameter is documented with format hints (sd_xxx or numeric), so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond that, making the baseline 3 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?
Uses a specific verb ('Retrieve') plus resource ('information about a specific domain') and even names what's returned (DNS records, verification status). It does not, however, distinguish itself from get-domain-like siblings such as list-domains or verify-domain, leaving the agent to infer the boundary.
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 singular 'specific domain' wording implies lookups by ID rather than listing, and the sibling set makes the read-vs-write intent guessable, but the description never states when to use this over list-domains or verify-domain.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.