Skip to main content
Glama

Domains

by io.github.pipeworx-io

Check Availability

check_availability
Read-onlyIdempotent

Check whether a name is available to register across MULTIPLE TLDs at once — the domain-hunting tool. Pass a base name ("acme") and get .com/.io/.ai/.co/.net/.org/.app/.dev checked in one call (or pass your own tlds list). For each: available true/false (+ expiration if taken). Use for "is X available", "find an open domain for my project", "which TLDs is X free on". Single-domain detail is domain_status; this is the bulk/brainstorm version.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
nameYesBase name to check, e.g. "acme" (a full "acme.com" is also accepted — the label before the first dot is used).
tldsNoTLDs to check (without the dot), e.g. ["com","io","ai"]. Default: com, io, ai, co, net, org, app, dev. Max 15.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.

  1. Changed1 schema field changed
    • addedInput schema / examples
      Added value: +[
+  {
+    "name": "acme"
+  },
+  {
+    "name": "nexus",
+    "tlds": [
+      "com",
+      "io",
+      "ai",
+      "dev"
+    ]
+  }
+]
  2. Added

TDQS

A4.4/5.0
Behavior4/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare readOnly and idempotent. The description adds useful behavioral context: it checks multiple TLDs in one call, returns availability/expiration, accepts full domain input, and documents the default TLD list and max 15. No contradictions with annotations.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is three sentences covering purpose, usage mechanics, and alternative. It is slightly long but every sentence contributes and the main purpose is front-loaded.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness5/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

No output schema exists, but the description explains the return shape ('available true/false (+ expiration if taken)'), default behavior, and how it relates to sibling tools. Complete for a simple read-only lookup tool.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100% and both parameters have detailed descriptions. The description reinforces the default TLD list and the base-name handling but adds little beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 is appropriate.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description uses a specific verb+resource: 'Check whether a name is available to register across MULTIPLE TLDs at once'. It clearly distinguishes itself from domain_status by calling this 'the bulk/brainstorm version' and explicitly naming domain_status for single-domain detail.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines5/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Explicit use cases are listed: 'Use for "is X available"', 'find an open domain for my project', 'which TLDs is X free on'. It also provides a clear alternative: 'Single-domain detail is domain_status; this is the bulk/brainstorm version'.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

All Domains toolsInspect
Try in Browser
RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

A3.9/5.0
Disambiguation4/5

Most tools have distinct purposes, but ask_pipeworx and ask_pipeworx_grounded overlap heavily (one is a grounded variant). Also, multiple polymarket tools serve related functions, though descriptions differentiate them. Overall clear but minor confusion possible.

Naming Consistency4/5

Tool names follow a mostly consistent snake_case pattern with descriptive names. Some tools use prefixes like pipeworx_ or polymarket_ which is internally consistent. A few short names like 'forget' deviate slightly, but overall convention is maintained.

Tool Count3/5

With 32 tools, the server covers a broad range of functionalities from AI visibility to prediction markets. While each tool serves a purpose, the count feels high for coherence, bordering on unnecessary complexity. Still, the scope justifies the number.

Completeness3/5

The tool set covers many areas like company data, prediction markets, domain lookups, and memory. However, there are gaps: no user management beyond subscriptions, no file handling, and some areas like real estate are mentioned but not directly addressed. Overall functional but not exhaustive.

Resources