Generate brandable business names with real-time domain availability. Returns names that are ACTUALLY available to register, with pricing. [Requires a free namemy.app API key — get one at https://namemy.app/app/api-keys]
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| tlds | No | Preferred TLDs | |
| count | No | Max results | |
| industry | No | Industry context (e.g., 'saas', 'fintech', 'healthcare') | |
| description | Yes | What does the project/business do? |
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?
The description discloses that results are filtered for real-time availability, includes pricing, and requires an API key with a link to obtain one. This goes beyond the structured data, though it doesn't detail error handling or rate limits. Given no annotations, this is valuable context.
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 two sentences, front-loaded with the main purpose, and includes a concise note about the API key. No wasted words.
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 description covers the purpose, availability behavior, pricing, and the API key prerequisite. However, without an output schema, it only vaguely describes the return format, leaving some ambiguity about the exact structure of returned names and pricing.
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 has 100% description coverage for all four parameters, but the tool description does not add any additional semantics for parameters. It relies entirely on the schema, which is adequate but the description provides no extra value.
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 it generates brandable business names with real-time domain availability, and emphasizes that returned names are actually available with pricing. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like check_domain or buy_domain.
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 implies usage for generating business names with domain availability, but it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use this tool. There is no guidance distinguishing it from related tools such as check_domain_public or buy_domain.
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.