list_domainsRetrieve an account's monitored domains and their IDs for use with get_fix_plan. Requires an API key with the domain:read scope.
List the account's monitored domains and their IDs, for use with get_fix_plan. Requires an API key with the domain:read scope.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| domains | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare it read-only, idempotent, non-destructive and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds a genuinely non-structured behavior constraint: it requires an API key with the 'domain:read' scope. Pagination or result-size behavior is not mentioned, keeping it short of a 5.
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 sentences, zero waste, front-loaded with the resource and its output followed by the one prerequisite. Nothing could be removed without losing information.
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?
An output schema exists, so return values need no explanation. Between the description and annotations the agent knows what the tool returns, its safety profile, the required auth scope, and where the result feeds next. Nothing needed to invoke it correctly is missing.
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?
The tool takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to compensate for; baseline for a parameterless tool is 4. No parameter syntax is described, and none is needed.
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 the account's monitored domains') and even names what it returns ('their IDs'). It also names the sibling that consumes this data (get_fix_plan), letting an agent place it in a workflow without opening the 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?
Explicitly frames the use case: obtain domain IDs 'for use with get_fix_plan'. That is clear chaining guidance rather than implied usage, but there is no when-not guidance or statement about alternatives (e.g. versus other listing tools).
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.