hosting_listWebsiteRedirectsV1Retrieve a paginated list of redirects configured for a specific website by providing the domain and username. Use this tool to review all redirect rules.
Returns a paginated list of redirects configured for the selected website.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| page | No | Page number | |
| domain | Yes | Domain name | |
| per_page | No | Number of items per page | |
| username | Yes | username parameter |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.42.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false. The description adds that the result is paginated and scoped to the selected website, which is useful, but it does not disclose response shape, default page size, or ordering. No contradiction with 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 front-loaded sentence conveys action, resource, scope, and pagination without filler. Every word earns its place.
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 list tool, the definition plus schema and annotations is nearly complete: parameters are documented, safety is covered, and pagination is mentioned. It only lacks a clearer statement that the domain parameter selects the website and an explicit note about response contents, though no output schema exists.
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 the schema already documents all four parameters. The description adds no parameter-specific meaning beyond the phrase 'selected website,' which weakly implies the required domain parameter.
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?
States a specific action ('Returns a paginated list'), specific resource ('redirects'), and scope ('configured for the selected website'). This clearly separates it from the create/delete redirect siblings and from other website-level list tools such as hosting_listWebsiteParkedDomainsV1 and hosting_listWebsiteSubdomainsV1.
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?
No guidance on when to choose this tool over alternatives, when not to use it, or how the 'selected website' is identified. A tool that could be confused with other website-list operations would benefit from an explicit selector such as 'Use this to inspect redirects; use hosting_createWebsiteRedirectV1 to add one.'
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.