cloud_domain_verify_statusCheck the approval status of a .vn domain registration profile by order ID. Returns the current profile_status from MONA Host to track pending or completed domain verification.
Kiểm tra trạng thái duyệt hồ sơ đăng ký .vn (profile_status từ MONA Host).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | Order ID của tên miền .vn. |
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, idempotentHint, openWorldHint and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that the value comes from an external system (MONA Host) and is the profile_status field, which is mildly useful but does not describe retry/polling behavior or what values can be returned.
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 zero filler; the action and resource lead immediately. It is appropriately sized for a one-parameter status tool.
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 status lookup with one fully documented parameter, the description is adequate but thin. Since there is no output schema, it would help to hint at the possible profile_status values or the meaning of a pending/rejected state, which is the tool's entire raison d'être.
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% – the single 'id' parameter is documented as an Order ID with a hex pattern constraint. The description adds no syntax or format detail beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.
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 pairs a specific verb (Kiểm tra / check) with a specific resource (the approval status of a .vn registration profile) and even names the underlying data field (profile_status) and source (MONA Host). It is clearly a read-status tool, though it does not explicitly contrast itself with close siblings like cloud_domain_verify_start or cloud_domain_reserve_status.
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?
There is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives such as cloud_domain_verify_start or cloud_domain_wait. The purpose implies a status-check workflow, but the agent must infer when this is the right call rather than cloud_domain_health.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.