addPrefixToDomain: Generate domain suggestions by adding prefixes to a base name.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| lang | No | Language code; default "eng". | |
| name | Yes | Base name to prefix, e.g. "mycompany". | |
| tlds | No | Comma-separated TLDs without leading dots, e.g. "com,net". | |
| maxResults | No | Maximum suggestions to return; default 20. | |
| vocabulary | No | Prefix vocabulary: "@prefixes" or a custom comma-separated list. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Input schema / properties / lang / descriptionAdded value: +"Language code; default \"eng\"."Input schema / properties / maxResults / descriptionAdded value: +"Maximum suggestions to return; default 20."Input schema / properties / name / descriptionAdded value: +"Base name to prefix, e.g. \"mycompany\"."Input schema / properties / tlds / descriptionAdded value: +"Comma-separated TLDs without leading dots, e.g. \"com,net\"."Input schema / properties / vocabulary / descriptionAdded value: +"Prefix vocabulary: \"@prefixes\" or a custom comma-separated list."Does 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 covered. The description adds minimal behavioral context beyond that, such as the output concept of suggestions, but does not disclose ordering, pagination, or vocabulary 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?
The description is a single clear, front-loaded sentence with no fluff beyond the redundant 'addPrefixToDomain:' heading that repeats the tool name. It is appropriately short and readable.
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 simple read-only suggestion tool, the description conveys the core output (domain suggestions) and all parameters are fully documented. The absence of an output schema is mitigated by the intuitive result type, though no details about response structure are given.
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 100%, with all five parameters already documented in the input schema. The description contributes no additional parameter semantics, so the baseline 3 is appropriate.
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 a specific verb ('Generate') with a specific resource ('domain suggestions') and a precise method ('adding prefixes to a base name'). This clearly differentiates it from the sibling addSuffixToDomain and other suggestion tools by identifying its distinct mechanism.
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 close alternatives like addSuffixToDomain, generateDomainSuggestions, or bulkDomainSuggestions. There are no explicit conditions, exclusions, or pointers to a more appropriate sibling.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Most tools target distinct resource-action pairs, but there are several overlapping clusters: six domain-suggestion tools (addPrefixToDomain, addSuffixToDomain, generateDomainSuggestions, bulkDomainSuggestions, spinDomainWords, suggestAlternatives) and overlapping account-info tools (getMyProfile, getAccountSummary, getRecentActivity, getMyAuditLogs). Descriptions help, but with 105 tools an agent will regularly face near-identical choices.
The dominant convention is verbNoun camelCase (createContact, listDnsRecords, updateNameservers), which is readable and predictable. Deviations exist in the osirApp* and osirSite* families, where the noun precedes the verb, and a few names like suggestAlternatives and spinDomainWords break the pattern.
105 tools is far beyond a coherent MCP server surface; even if the platform genuinely spans domains, DNS, email, VPS, billing, and app hosting, this should be split into focused servers. Many tools are single-purpose getters that add selection overhead rather than earning their place as one integrated set.
The covered services have broad CRUD/lifecycle coverage: contacts, DNS, hosts, domains, email, VPS, SSH keys, invoices, and Osir apps all have create/read/update/delete paths. Some registrar-specific operations (e.g., contact reassignment after registration, domain deletion/redemption) are missing, and the sheer sprawl makes coverage hard to verify.