kinsta_domains_addAdd a custom domain to a Kinsta environment to connect your domain to the site.
Add a custom domain to an environment.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| env_id | Yes | The environment ID | |
| setup_type | No | ||
| domain_name | Yes | The domain name to add (e.g. example.com) | |
| custom_ssl_key | No | ||
| custom_ssl_cert | No | ||
| is_wildcardless | No | ||
| add_with_www_subdomain | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The annotations only provide openWorldHint, so the description carries the burden of disclosing side effects. It says 'Add' but does not explain whether this triggers verification, downtime-avoidance behavior, SSL provisioning, or how existing domains on the environment are affected.
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 one short sentence with no filler and is front-loaded with the action and target. However, given the tool's seven parameters and optional configuration flags, the description is somewhat under-sized for the operation's complexity.
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?
With seven parameters, no output schema, and minimal annotations, the description leaves out critical context such as setup_type behavior, custom SSL key/cert usage, wildcard handling, and post-call results. An agent would not know what to expect after invoking this tool or how to configure a domain addition correctly.
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 only 29%, and the description adds no meaning beyond the already-documented env_id and domain_name. The optional setup_type, SSL fields, is_wildcardless, and add_with_www_subdomain remain unexplained in both the schema and the description, so the low coverage is not compensated.
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 ('Add') and resource ('custom domain to an environment'), clearly identifying the operation. It differentiates from sibling domain tools like list, delete, verification, and set-primary, so an agent can recognize this is the creation/association action.
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 is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as DNS record creation or domain verification. It does not mention prerequisites, ordering, or conditions like domain ownership or verification requirements before adding a domain.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.