domains_getTransferV1Check the current status of a domain transfer. Retrieve details for incoming or outgoing registrar transfers to monitor progress.
Retrieve the transfer for a specified domain.
Use this endpoint to track an incoming or outgoing registrar transfer and its status.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| domain | Yes | Domain name |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.23.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that the endpoint tracks transfer status and supports incoming/outgoing transfers, but gives no detail about response shape, error conditions, or other behavioral specifics. No contradiction exists.
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?
Two concise sentences with the core action front-loaded. Every sentence adds useful context: what is retrieved and why an agent would call it. No filler or redundant restatement.
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 full schema coverage and clear annotations, the description conveys the essential purpose and hints at the return focus via 'status'. However, without an output schema and with similar sibling tools, a brief note differentiating this from move-specific or list endpoints would make it fully unambiguous.
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% and the only parameter, 'domain', is already described as 'Domain name'. The description's 'specified domain' adds no meaningful detail beyond the schema, so the baseline score of 3 is 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?
The description uses a specific verb ('Retrieve') and resource ('transfer for a specified domain'), and clarifies it covers incoming or outgoing registrar transfers and their status. However, it does not explicitly distinguish itself from the similar-looking domains_getIncomingDomainMoveV1 and domains_getOutgoingDomainMoveV1 siblings.
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 clearly instructs when to use the endpoint: to track an incoming or outgoing registrar transfer and its status. It does not provide explicit when-not-to-use guidance or name alternatives, especially relative to the domain move and transfer list siblings.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.