get_domainRetrieve a domain by ID and check its DNS records, showing whether each required record was found.
Get one domain with the DNS records it needs and whether each was found.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | The domain ID (dom_…). |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered. The description usefully adds that the response includes the DNS records the domain needs and a found/not-found indicator per record, which is real behavioral context. It says nothing about behavior for a nonexistent or unverified domain id, which is the main gap.
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?
One tightly written sentence with no filler, and the core outcome (domain plus DNS records with found status) is front-loaded. It is efficient, though very sparse for a tool that returns a compound payload.
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?
With no output schema, the description must hint at the return shape, and it does at a high level (DNS records + found flags). It omits error behavior (unknown id), record ordering, and whether the domain object's other fields are returned, leaving the agent to discover these at call time.
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?
There is a single required parameter and the schema documents it fully (100% coverage) with the 'dom_…' id format, so the description carries no param burden. It does not repeat or extend parameter meaning, which is acceptable at this coverage level but adds no value.
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 ('Get one domain') and adds what comes back (DNS records plus per-record found status). This distinguishes it from list_domains, which the description implicitly contrasts with by specifying 'one domain'. It stops short of naming siblings explicitly, so it is strong but not maximally differentiated.
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?
The phrase 'Get one domain' implies single-record lookup usage versus list_domains, but no when-to-use/when-not-to-use guidance or alternative is stated. An agent can infer the case (it needs details for one known domain id), but nothing routes it away from other tools like verify_domain.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.