Generate a Cealing Host rule for a domain. Returns a JSON array containing domain patterns and the resolved IP address
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| domain | No | Domain name to resolve (default: wikipedia.org) |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
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 tool's safety profile is known. The description adds that the tool returns a JSON array with domain patterns and the resolved IP address, providing additional output context without contradicting 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, front-loaded with the action, and each sentence adds value: purpose then output format. No superfluous text.
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 no output schema, the description appropriately specifies the return type and contents. It covers the main behavior and output, though it doesn't detail the exact structure of domain patterns, which is acceptable for the tool's simplicity.
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 only parameter 'domain' is fully described in the schema, including its default value. The description adds no additional semantics beyond restating 'for a domain', so the baseline of 3 applies.
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 the specific verb 'Generate' and names the resource 'Cealing Host rule', with a clear scope 'for a domain'. It also states the output format, and the verb distinguishes it from siblings like check_host/search_host.
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 explicit alternatives or when-not-to-use guidance is provided. The context implies usage when creating a rule, but it doesn't reference sibling tools like check_host or forward_proxy, nor mention edge cases like when to use this vs search_host.
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 are distinct: proxy and file are separate from host tools. However, check_host and search_host both involve the Cealing Host, and an agent might confuse which to use for a domain lookup vs availability check, though descriptions clarify.
All tools use snake_case with a verb_noun pattern (check_host, forward_proxy, generate_host, get_file, search_host). No mixed conventions, very consistent.
Five tools is within the ideal range (3-15). Each tool serves a distinct purpose, and the count feels well-scoped for the server's apparent functionality.
The tool set lacks essential operations: no delete or update for host rules, no upload or list for files, and no config options for the proxy. These gaps would cause agent failures for common workflows.
