addSuffixToDomain: Generate domain suggestions by adding suffixes to a base name.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| lang | No | Language code; default "eng". | |
| name | Yes | Base name to suffix, 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 | Suffix vocabulary: "@suffixes" 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 suffix, 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: +"Suffix vocabulary: \"@suffixes\" 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 description is not responsible for safety disclosure. It adds the core behavior of suffix appending, but does not disclose whether suggestions are checked for availability, how suffixes are selected, or what the result contains. This is adequate but not rich.
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 one short sentence and front-loads the essential mechanism. However, the leading 'addSuffixToDomain:' label redundantly re-states the tool name and adds no information.
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 schema and annotations cover parameters and safety, but there is no indication of return format and no guidance for choosing among the many suggestion-related siblings such as addPrefixToDomain, bulkDomainSuggestions, spinDomainWords, or suggestAlternatives. For a tool with no output schema and a crowded sibling group, 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?
Schema description coverage is 100%; every parameter is individually described, so the description need not repeat parameter details. The description only restates the general 'base name + suffix' relationship, adding no new parameter semantics beyond what the schema already provides.
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 states a clear verb ('Generate'), resource ('domain suggestions'), and mechanism ('adding suffixes to a base name'). It distinguishes from the prefix-based sibling implicitly, but does not name any alternative such as addPrefixToDomain or generateDomainSuggestions, so it stops short of a 5.
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 phrase 'adding suffixes to a base name' implies this tool is for suffix-based suggestion generation, but there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not-to-use guidance and no reference to the many sibling suggestion tools such as addPrefixToDomain, bulkDomainSuggestions, or generateDomainSuggestions.
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.