cloud_domain_healthCheck domain registration expiry, profile status, nameservers, SSL, and alerts for a purchased domain using its order ID.
Kiểm tra hạn đăng ký, trạng thái hồ sơ, NS, SSL và cảnh báo tên miền đã mua.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | Order ID tên miền cần kiểm tra. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.11.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, openWorldHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the specific items inspected (registration, profile, NS, SSL, alerts), which is useful behavioral context, but it omits return format 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 efficient sentence that front-loads the verb and lists checked items without waste.
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-parameter read-only health check, the description lists what is checked but does not describe the return format or response shape. Given the rich annotations and full schema coverage, this is adequate though not exhaustive.
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%, so the single 'id' parameter is fully documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter details, which is acceptable given the schema handles it.
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 ('Kiểm tra' = check) and enumerates the domain aspects checked (registration expiration, profile status, NS, SSL, alerts). It does not explicitly name a sibling tool to differentiate from, but its aggregate health-check scope is clear.
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 when-to-use, prerequisites, or alternative tools are mentioned. The description only states what the tool does, leaving usage context to inference.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.