kinsta_dns_domainsRetrieve a list of all DNS domains linked to your Kinsta company account. Instantly view registered domains to manage hosting and DNS settings.
List all DNS domains for your Kinsta company.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds no behavioral context beyond the annotations, such as pagination, response format, or company scope details. With annotations carrying the 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?
The description is a single, clear sentence with no wasted words. It front-loads the action ('List') and the resource ('DNS domains'), making it immediately scannable for an agent.
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 zero-parameter read-only list tool, the description is mostly complete. However, it does not mention what the response contains (e.g., domain names, IDs, statuses) or whether company context is required, and there is no output schema to fill that gap. The sibling tools suggest related DNS operations, but the description alone is adequate but not rich.
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?
The input schema has zero parameters, so there is no parameter semantics burden on the description. The description correctly implies no inputs are needed, and the schema coverage is 100% (vacuously). Baseline 4 for zero-parameter tools 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 states a specific verb ('List') and resource ('DNS domains for your Kinsta company'), which clearly identifies the operation. It does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like kinsta_dns_records or kinsta_domains_list, but the resource scope ('DNS domains') is distinct enough to avoid major confusion.
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 implies a simple read operation with no parameters, and the context signals show zero required parameters, so an agent can infer when to use it. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like kinsta_dns_records or kinsta_domains_list, nor does it mention any exclusions or prerequisites.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.