domain_owned_listLists the domains you purchased on Lizard, including status, expiry date, and whether each points to an app. Requires a signed-in user or API key without scopes.
List the domains the user bought on Lizard (lizard.build/domains): domain, status (registered once ready), expiry and whether one points at an app. Needs a signed-in user or an API key with no scopes.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.3Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive behavior. The description adds valuable context beyond annotations: it requires a signed-in user or API key with no scopes, and it explains return fields including status and whether a domain points at an app.
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 compact and front-loaded. It states the purpose first, then summarizes returned fields and auth requirements without wasting space.
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 with no parameters, rich annotations, and no output schema, the description is complete enough. It explains what is listed, what fields are returned, and the authentication needed.
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 tool has zero parameters and an empty input schema, so there are no parameter semantics to clarify. The baseline for zero parameters is 4.
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 and resource: 'List the domains the user bought on Lizard.' It adds useful scope with returned fields, but it does not explicitly distinguish this from sibling tools like domain_dns_list or domain_attach.
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 auth prerequisite is stated, but there is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as domain_dns_list, domain_verify, or domain_attach. Usage is implied by 'domains the user bought' rather than spelled out.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.