domains_getOutgoingDomainMoveV1Track the progress of an outgoing domain move by providing the domain name. Returns move details or a 404 if no move is active.
Retrieve the outgoing move for a specified domain.
Returns 404 when the domain has no move in progress.
Use this endpoint to track the status of a move you have initiated for a single domain.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| domain | Yes | Domain name |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.29.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds meaningful behavioral context by disclosing the 404 behavior when no move is in progress, which agents would not otherwise know. This is valuable beyond the 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?
The description is compact and efficient: one sentence states the core action, one discloses the 404 edge case, and one gives usage guidance. Every sentence earns its place, and the most important information is front-loaded.
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 single-parameter read-only endpoint with clear annotations, the description is largely complete: it explains the purpose, the 404 case, and the intended use. There is no output schema, and the description does not describe the response body or possible move statuses, but this is a minor gap given the low complexity.
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 coverage is 100%, so the schema already fully documents the single 'domain' parameter. The description reinforces that the domain is singular and specific but adds no format, example, or additional semantic detail. Baseline 3 is appropriate given the high schema coverage.
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 ('Retrieve the outgoing move') and the resource ('for a specified domain'), and the phrase 'single domain' distinguishes it from list-style endpoints. It accurately reflects the tool's function, though it does not explicitly name sibling endpoints like the incoming move or move-list variants.
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: 'Use this endpoint to track the status of a move you have initiated for a single domain.' This tells the agent when the tool is appropriate. It does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives, so it falls just short of full guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.