Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
aeza-mcp

aeza-mcp

by rdydygin
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

domains_get_expected_nameservers

Read-onlyIdempotent

Retrieve the expected nameservers for a domain so you can verify or configure correct DNS delegation.

Instructions

Get expected nameservers for domain delegation GET /domains/nameservers

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": "domains_get_expected_nameservers"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.2.0

TDQS

B3/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds essentially nothing beyond an HTTP path ('GET /domains/nameservers'), and with no output schema it never indicates what the expected-nameserver result looks like or how it should be compared against actual delegation.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Two short lines with the purpose front-loaded and no filler. The second line is a raw endpoint path that carries almost no value for an agent, but it is not harmful.

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

Completeness2/5

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

For a zero-argument tool with no output schema, the description should explain the implicit scope (whose domains are checked) and at least hint at the return shape. Neither is present, leaving an agent unable to predict what the call yields before making it.

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 input schema has zero parameters with 100% coverage, so there is nothing for the description to clarify at the parameter level. Baseline 4 applies for a no-parameter tool.

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

Purpose4/5

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

States a specific verb and resource ('Get expected nameservers') and ties it to domain delegation, which is enough to separate it from sibling read tools like domains_get_record or domains_get. The scope is still slightly ambiguous because the tool takes no domain argument, so 'expected nameservers' for what exactly is left implicit.

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

Usage Guidelines2/5

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

The description gives no when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance and never mentions related tools such as domains_check_domain_delegation or domains_verify, which an agent would reasonably consider instead. Usage must be inferred entirely from the name.

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