providers_domains_listLists all domains associated with a specific provider by provider ID, enabling quick inspection of provider domain configurations in UseGrant.
List Domains
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| providerId | Yes | Provider ID |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v2.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so safety and idempotency are fully covered. The description contributes nothing beyond them—no pagination behavior, ordering, or what a domain record contains.
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 text is extremely short and front-loaded, but here brevity reflects under-specification rather than efficient communication. There is zero waste but also zero useful content.
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 list tool in a family that includes domains_add, domains_verify, and domains_delete—implying domains carry verification state—the description says nothing about scope, return contents, pagination, or relationship to verification. With no output schema, this leaves meaningful gaps.
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?
There is one parameter (providerId) with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema carries the semantics. The description adds no meaning beyond it, which matches the baseline 3 when schema coverage is high.
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?
Tautological: description restates name/title.
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?
No guidance on when this tool should be used versus providers_domains_get, providers_list, or tenants_providers_list. The listing nature is only implied by the word "List," with no exclusions or prerequisites stated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.