Check if a domain is available and get pricing from the cheapest registrar. [Requires a free namemy.app API key — get one at https://namemy.app/app/api-keys]
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| domain | Yes | Domain to check, e.g. 'taskflow.app' |
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?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only mentions the API key requirement and URL for obtaining one, but does not disclose other traits such as rate limits, read-only nature, or response format. This is a significant gap for a tool with no annotation safety net.
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 extremely concise: one sentence stating the main purpose plus a bracketed note about the API key. Both sentences earn their place, and the main functionality is front-loaded with no redundant wording.
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?
This is a simple tool with one parameter and no output schema, so the description does not need extensive detail about return values. However, it could benefit from a brief note on the response shape (e.g., availability boolean plus pricing) to fully compensate for the missing output schema. As written, it is adequate but leaves some ambiguity.
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 input schema fully documents the single 'domain' parameter with an example, giving 100% schema description coverage. The description adds no additional parameter semantics, so the baseline of 3 applies as the schema does the heavy lifting.
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 clearly states the tool's function: checking domain availability and obtaining pricing from the cheapest registrar. This is a specific verb+resource pairing, but it does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling tools like check_domain_public, so it falls short of a perfect score.
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 only usage guidance is the API key requirement, which is a prerequisite rather than a directive on when to use this tool over alternatives. It does not mention contexts where one would prefer check_domain, check_domain_public, or bulk variants, providing minimal guidance.
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 have clearly distinct purposes (generation, checking, buying, DNS). The main overlap is between check_domain and check_domain_public, but descriptions clearly favor the public version, reducing ambiguity. buy_domain and buy_link are also distinct (direct purchase vs. link generation).
The majority follow a verb_noun pattern (buy_domain, generate_logo, list_domains). A few deviations exist: brand_conflict_check reverses the order, and the check_domain variants have inconsistent singular/plural forms. Overall, the pattern is still easily recognizable.
13 tools covers the domain from name generation, conflict checking, domain purchase, DNS management, and brand asset generation without being overwhelming. Each tool serves a logical part of the workflow, and the count is within the ideal 3-15 range.
The core domain lifecycle is covered: generate names, check/buy domains, list owned domains, and set DNS. Brand assets (logo, legal, social, brand kit) are also covered. Minor gaps like a delete domain or DNS delete tool exist, but they are not critical for the primary workflow.