list_domainsLists all Domeneshop account domains, optionally filtered by name, to quickly find the domain_id required by other tools.
List all domains on the Domeneshop account, optionally filtered by domain name. Use this first to find the domain_id the other tools need.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| filter | No | only return domains whose name contains this text, e.g. '.no' |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| domains | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v2.0.7Input schema / $schemaPrevious value: -"http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#"New value: +"https://json-schema.org/draft/2020-12/schema"Output schema / $schemaPrevious value: -"http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#"New value: +"https://json-schema.org/draft/2020-12/schema"v1.1.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds only the account-wide scope plus the optional name filter; it says nothing about result volume, pagination, or ordering for what could be a large listing.
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?
Two short sentences, purpose front-loaded and the sequencing hint second. Nothing redundant or padded.
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 one-optional-param list tool with full annotations and an output schema, the description covers purpose, scope and workflow placement. The only missing piece is listing behavior (pagination/ordering) on a potentially long account-level result set.
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 coverage is 100% and the single 'filter' parameter is documented there with a concrete example ('.no'). The description's 'optionally filtered by domain name' only restates it, adding no matching semantics (substring vs. exact) beyond the schema.
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 and resource ('List all domains') plus the scope ('on the Domeneshop account'), which distinguishes it from get_domain and list_forwards without needing to open a schema.
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?
'Use this first to find the domain_id the other tools need' gives a clear when-to-use condition and implicitly points at get_domain as the alternative once the id is known. It stops short of explicitly naming the alternative or saying when not to call this, so it is not quite a 5.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.