kutt-mcp

kutt_domains

Destructive

List, create, or delete custom domains on a self-hosted Kutt instance, with write actions requiring explicit confirmation and enabled write access.

Instructions

List, create, and delete custom Kutt domains. List is derived from GET /users domains. Writes run only when confirm is true and KUTT_ALLOW_WRITES=true. Omit confirm or pass false for a preview that sends nothing. Actions: list, create, delete.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "action": "<action>"
    },
    "name": "kutt_domains"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`id`	No	Domain UUID for delete.
`action`	Yes	Kutt operation to call.
`address`	No	Custom domain hostname on create.
`confirm`	No	Boolean true runs the write when KUTT_ALLOW_WRITES is true. Omit it or pass false for a dry-run preview that sends nothing. The string true is rejected.
`homepage`	No	Homepage URL for the domain root.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Nov 14, 2026

TDQS

A3.9/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already flag destructiveHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety bar is lower, yet the description adds genuinely non-obvious behavior: writes require both confirm=true and the KUTT_ALLOW_WRITES environment flag, and an omitted/false confirm performs a preview that transmits nothing. It does not disclose the blast radius of delete (e.g. whether links on the domain are affected) or whether create is idempotent, which keeps it from 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.

Conciseness4/5

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

Front-loaded with the purpose and the write-gating rule in the second and third sentences, with no filler. The final sentence 'Actions: list, create, delete' largely repeats the opening enumeration, which is mild redundancy.

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

Completeness4/5

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

For a five-parameter, multi-action mutation tool with no output schema, the definition covers the critical operating contract: which actions exist, what list is derived from, and when writes actually fire. Gaps remain around delete consequences and per-action parameter requirements, but nothing essential to invoking it safely is missing.

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

Parameters3/5

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

Schema coverage is 100%, so action, confirm, id, address and homepage are already documented in the schema. The description restates the confirm/action semantics rather than adding syntax, constraints, or conditional-required rules (such as id being required only for delete). Baseline 3 applies when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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?

The opening sentence gives a concrete verb set and resource (list/create/delete custom Kutt domains), and the action enum is echoed explicitly. Siblings kutt_links and kutt_info are implicitly separated by resource ('domains'), but the description never names them, so differentiation is by inference rather than statement.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

The confirm gating is spelled out clearly: omit or pass false for a preview that sends nothing, pass true (with KUTT_ALLOW_WRITES=true) to actually write. That is actionable when-to-use guidance for the risky path. It stops short of saying when to prefer this over kutt_links for related tasks, so it is short of a 5.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Deploy Server