Skip to main content
Glama

Name.ai MCP Server

by ai.name

search_domain

Read-onlyIdempotent

Check whether a domain is available and, for the same label, whether its common alternate TLDs are too (e.g. querying "acme.com" also returns "acme.ai", "acme.io", ...).

Backed by POST /api/domain/search — public, no auth required.

Buy-now (aftermarket/marketplace) prices are hidden unless you're
authenticated (see AUTH.md at name.ai for how to get a token) — an
unauthenticated call only sees new-registration pricing for a domain
that's simply unregistered. Pass a valid OAuth access token as this
call's Authorization header and it's forwarded automatically.

Args:
    domain: A domain name to check, e.g. "example.ai".
    include_alternates: When true (default), also return sibling TLDs for
        the same label. When false, only the exact domain is returned.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
domainYes
include_alternatesNo

TDQS

A4.8/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Beyond the read/idempotent annotations, the description discloses the underlying endpoint, the public/authenticated behavior, price visibility differences, and automatic OAuth header forwarding. This gives the agent actionable behavioral knowledge annotations alone cannot convey.

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

Conciseness5/5

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

The description is front-loaded with the core purpose, then endpoint/auth context, then a clearly labeled Args section. Each sentence adds distinct information and no filler is present.

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?

Given two simple parameters and no output schema, the description covers invocation endpoint, auth requirements, parameter semantics, and an edge-case about aftermarket prices. An agent has enough context to call and interpret the result correctly.

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

Parameters5/5

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

With 0% schema description coverage, the description fully compensates by explaining domain format with an example and include_alternates' default true behavior and its effect. Every parameter gets additional meaning beyond the raw schema.

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 opens with a specific verb+resource: 'Check whether a domain is available' and adds alternate-TLD behavior with a concrete example. This clearly differentiates it from sibling tools like whois_lookup or tld_registration_price, even though those are not named.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

The description gives clear contextual signals: the call is public, requires no auth, and is intended for availability checks. It does not explicitly state when to prefer it over sibling tools or when not to use it, so it misses the explicit-alternatives bar.

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

All Name.ai MCP Server 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

A4.5/5.0
Disambiguation5/5

Each tool targets a distinct concern: availability/alternates, TLD pricing, TLD policy requirements, and WHOIS details. There is no overlap or ambiguous boundary between them.

Naming Consistency4/5

All names are snake_case and descriptive, but conventions are mixed: search_domain is verb_noun, whois_lookup is noun_verb, and the two tld_* tools are noun phrases. The tld_ prefix provides cohesion, making the set predictable despite the lack of a single uniform pattern.

Tool Count5/5

Four tools is well-scoped for a domain-information server. Each tool contributes a necessary capability without redundancy or bloat.

Completeness4/5

The surface covers the core domain-research lifecycle: availability, pricing, registry requirements, and existing registration details. A minor gap is the lack of any purchase/registration action, but the server appears intentionally informational rather than transactional.

Resources