List domains connected to your portal to identify the correct domain when creating a page.
List domains connected to the portal.
Useful when a portal serves several domains and a page needs an
explicit domain on creation.
Args: limit: maximum results, 1-100. Default 100.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.5.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. 'List' clearly implies a read-only retrieval operation, and the scope is stated as domains connected to the portal. However, it does not explicitly mention side effects, authentication requirements, or whether pagination beyond the limit is handled.
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 brief and well-structured: a single-sentence functional summary, a one-line use-case rationale, and a minimal Args section. Every sentence is informative and no unnecessary detail is included.
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?
With one optional parameter, an output schema present, and a simple read operation, the description is complete enough. It covers what the tool returns conceptually, when to use it, and fully documents the only parameter, including its range and default.
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%, so the description must compensate. It does: the Args section specifies that `limit` controls maximum results, enforces a range of 1-100, and gives the default of 100. The schema only lists the default, so this adds valuable constraints.
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 opens with a clear verb and resource: 'List domains connected to the portal.' This precisely identifies both the operation and its scope, and it is easily distinguished from sibling list tools like list_blogs and list_forms, which cover different resources.
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 a concrete use case: when a portal serves multiple domains and a page needs an explicit `domain` on creation. This helps an agent understand when to call the tool, though it does not mention explicit alternatives or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.