Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
monacloud-mcp

monacloud-mcp

Official
by mona-software
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Local

Bắt đầu nộp hồ sơ .vn

cloud_domain_verify_start

Generates a pre-filled declaration and upload link for .vn domain verification. Use after buying a .vn domain with pending_verification status.

Instructions

Sinh bản khai đã điền sẵn và link upload hồ sơ .vn. Dùng sau khi mua tên miền .vn (status=pending_verification).

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "id": "<id>"
    },
    "name": "cloud_domain_verify_start"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
idYesOrder ID trả về khi cloud_domain_buy.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.11.0

TDQS

A3.7/5.0
Behavior3/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false, openWorldHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds the state gate (pending_verification) and that output is a generated form plus upload link, but says nothing about permissions, side effects of re-calling, or expiry of the upload link.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Two short sentences, the artifact produced is front-loaded and the precondition follows immediately. No filler or repetition.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness3/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

With no output schema, the description does partially cover the return (pre-filled declaration + upload link) and the triggering state, but it omits what the agent should do next (upload/submit, then poll cloud_domain_verify_status), leaving the workflow half-specified.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100% and the single `id` parameter is documented in-schema as the order ID from cloud_domain_buy. The description adds no syntax or format detail beyond that, so the baseline 3 applies.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb and artifact: 'Sinh bản khai đã điền sẵn và link upload hồ sơ .vn' (generate a pre-filled declaration and upload link for the .vn dossier). This is far more than a restatement of the name, though it does not explicitly contrast itself with the nearby cloud_domain_verify_status.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Gives an explicit activation condition: use after buying a .vn domain with status=pending_verification. That is a real when-to-use rule, but no alternative tool is named (e.g. verify_status for checking progress) and no exclusions are stated.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Deploy Server

Other Tools