add_mail_domainCreate a mail domain within HestiaCP with optional DKIM, antivirus, and anti-spam settings.
Create a mail domain. Executes verified command v-add-mail-domain.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| dkim | No | yes | |
| user | Yes | ||
| domain | Yes | ||
| restart | No | yes | |
| antispam | No | yes | |
| dkimSize | No | 2048 | |
| antivirus | No | yes | |
| rejectSpam | No | no |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| ok | Yes | ||
| data | No | ||
| error | No | ||
| command | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already mark this as a non-read-only mutation. The description adds the implementation detail that it runs the verified command 'v-add-mail-domain', which is modest extra context, but it does not describe side effects such as service restarts or duplicate-handling behavior.
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?
Two short sentences with no filler; the core action is front-loaded and the additional command detail is relevant.
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 tool with eight parameters and significant optional toggles, this definition is under-specified. It does not explain which parameters matter for typical use, any ordering or dependency between user and domain, or why the optional flags exist. The presence of an output schema covers return values, but the rest of the call context is incomplete.
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 0% and the description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond names. With eight parameters, six of them enums, the agent has no explanation of what 'dkim', 'antispam', 'rejectSpam', etc. actually control, so the description fails to compensate for the lack of schema descriptions.
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 uses the specific verb 'Create' with the resource 'mail domain', making the operation clear. It also names the underlying command, but does not explicitly distinguish it from sibling tools like add_mail_account.
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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, no prerequisites or exclusions. It merely states what it does, leaving usage context unaddressed.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.