Retrieve all custom domains and the auto-generated subdomain for a specified app by app ID, so you can verify domain configuration before deployment or DNS changes.
List all custom domains for an app, including the auto-generated subdomain.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| app_id | Yes | App ID (UUID) |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is well covered. The description adds useful behavioral detail by noting that the auto-generated subdomain is included in the result. However, it does not describe ordering, pagination, or authentication requirements, which keeps it at a moderate level.
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?
The description is a single compact sentence with zero wasted words. The key scope information is front-loaded and easy to parse.
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 list tool with one fully documented parameter and rich annotations, the description covers the essential purpose and one important scope detail. Because there is no output schema, it could say more about the return shape, but for this complexity level it is largely complete.
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%, and the single parameter app_id is fully documented in the schema. The description implies that listing is scoped to an app but adds no format or semantic detail beyond what the schema already provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema carries parameter documentation.
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 states a specific verb and resource: listing all custom domains for an app. It also clarifies that the auto-generated subdomain is included, which is useful scope. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling domain tools such as add_domain or verify_domains, so it falls short of a 5.
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 description gives no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention sibling tools like add_domain, remove_domain, set_primary_domain, or verify_domains, nor does it state when this tool should not be used. Usage is only weakly implied by the verb 'List'.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.