Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Prufa

Prufa

Official
by prufa-dev
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Remote

prufa_list_discovery_domains

Retrieve workspace discovery domains with status, verification details, and pending domain TXT records for domain management.

Instructions

[Pro] List this workspace's discovery domains with id, domain, status (pending|verified), verified_at, verification_method, test_payments_opt_in, and (for pending domains) the verification TXT record to publish.

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

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

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Addedv0.2.3

TDQS

A4.3/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It clearly lists the returned fields (id, domain, status, etc.) and mentions the TXT record for pending domains, which is behaviorally transparent. However, it does not explicitly state that the operation is read-only or describe any rate limits or authentication requirements.

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?

A single sentence that is perfectly concise, front-loaded with purpose, and includes a detailed list of fields. Every word earns its place without redundancy.

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

Completeness5/5

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

For a simple list tool with no parameters and no output schema, the description provides complete information: the action (list), the scope (workspace's discovery domains), and all returned fields (including conditionally for pending domains). No gaps remain.

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

Parameters4/5

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

The tool has zero parameters, and the schema coverage is 100% (empty). The description adds value by enumerating the output fields, which compensates for the lack of parameters. Baseline 4 is appropriate as there are no parameters to document.

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

Purpose5/5

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

The description clearly states the verb 'List' and resource 'this workspace's discovery domains', and distinguishes from sibling tools like prufa_register_discovery_domain and prufa_verify_discovery_domain by specifying the exact fields returned.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

The description implies usage for viewing domains but provides no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, nor does it mention alternatives. The list of returned fields is informative, but the context of when to use this tool versus other discovery domain tools is left implicit.

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