get_web_domainFetch the configuration and status of a specific web domain from HestiaCP. Provide user and domain to retrieve details in JSON or plain text format.
Get one web domain. Executes verified command v-list-web-domain.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| user | Yes | ||
| domain | Yes | ||
| format | No | json |
| 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 declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is clear. The description adds 'Executes verified command v-list-web-domain,' which provides a minor implementation detail but does not disclose additional behavior such as error handling, response format, or side effects. It adds only marginal value beyond the annotations.
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 concise and front-loaded with the purpose statement. However, the second sentence about the verified command is redundant and adds little value. Overall it is efficient but could be more informative without sacrificing brevity.
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?
The description is minimal and does not provide context on what the tool returns, how to use it, or any limitations. Given the tool's simplicity, it might suffice, but it lacks any guidance on parameter usage or output format, making it incomplete for an agent to confidently invoke it.
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?
The input schema has 0% description coverage, and the description does not explain the meaning, format, or purpose of any parameter (user, domain, format). It fails to compensate for the lack of schema descriptions, leaving agents without guidance on how to properly fill in the fields.
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 clearly states the purpose: 'Get one web domain.' It uses a specific verb and resource, and the word 'one' implicitly distinguishes it from list_web_domains. However, it does not explicitly name the sibling or state the difference, so it is clear but not fully differentiated.
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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention that listing all domains would require list_web_domains, nor any conditions or prerequisites. An agent receives no help in choosing between this and related tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.