kinsta_domains_set-primarySet a primary domain for a Kinsta environment. Optionally update WordPress URLs to match the new primary domain.
Set the primary domain for an environment.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| env_id | Yes | The environment ID | |
| domain_id | Yes | The domain ID to set as primary | |
| run_search_and_replace | No | Update WordPress URLs after changing the primary domain |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With only an openWorldHint annotation (which is vague), the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It merely states the action without revealing side effects, reversibility, permissions required, or the implication that run_search_and_replace may modify content. The description gives no warning that changing the primary domain can affect WordPress URLs or site accessibility.
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, concise sentence with the action verb and target front-loaded. No filler or redundant phrasing; every word contributes to understanding the tool's purpose.
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?
The description is minimal for a mutation tool with three parameters and no output schema. It omits important context such as whether the domain must be verified, whether the change is reversible, and the exact effect of run_search_and_replace. The openWorldHint annotation suggests additional unstated side effects, but the description does not attempt to address them.
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% and each parameter has a clear description in the schema. The tool description itself adds no extra meaning beyond what the schema already provides. Since the schema fully documents the parameters, a 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 states a specific verb ('Set'), a specific resource ('primary domain'), and the scope ('for an environment'). It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like add, delete, list, and verification, leaving no ambiguity about what this tool does.
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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites (e.g., the domain must exist or be verified), nor does it explain when to pair it with run_search_and_replace. Agents are left to infer suitability from the name alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.