domain_verifyVerify DNS configuration for a custom domain attached to a Lizard service. Checks hostname records against the project and service to confirm correct setup.
Use this when the user wants to verify DNS configuration for a custom domain attached to a Lizard service.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| project | Yes | ||
| service | Yes | ||
| hostname | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false for a tool whose name and description both sound like a passive check, and the description does nothing to explain that mismatch or what state could actually be altered. With annotations present the bar is lower, but this gap is exactly the kind of surprise (a 'verify' that is destructive) an agent needs disclosed, plus there is no mention of required auth or rate limits.
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 with no filler or redundancy. It is efficient, though the brevity is partly under-specification rather than discipline given the tool'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?
No output schema exists, so the description must explain what verification produces (a pass/fail result? per-record diagnostics?) and it does not. Combined with three fully undocumented parameters and destructive annotations that are never acknowledged, an agent lacks what it needs to call this confidently.
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 0% for all three required parameters, so the description must compensate and it does not — it never mentions project, service, or hostname individually. At best the phrase 'custom domain attached to a service' hints that the parameters identify a project/service/hostname triple, which is marginal value.
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 verb (verify) and resource (DNS configuration for a custom domain attached to a Lizard service), which is enough to tell it apart from the list/update siblings like domain_dns_list and domain_dns_update. It stops short of saying what 'verify' actually does (check records? trigger re-validation?), so it is clear but not fully pinning down the operation.
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 sentence 'Use this when the user wants to verify DNS configuration' is an explicit trigger condition, which is better than nothing. However, it offers no guidance on when NOT to use it, and does not route the agent to the obvious alternatives (domain_dns_list to inspect records, domain_dns_update to fix them, domain_owned_list to see which domains exist).
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.