Is a brand name free as a .com/.net/.org/.app domain and as a Bluesky, Mastodon, npm or PyPI handle?
Scored across 1 tool
With only one tool, there is no possibility of confusion or misselection between tools. The tool's purpose is clearly stated and distinct.
The single tool uses a clear verb_noun snake_case pattern (check_name_availability). No inconsistency exists because there is only one tool.
One tool is slightly below the typical 3-15 range, but it is well-scoped for a single-purpose name availability service. The tool bundles multiple checks (domains, platforms, score) into one comprehensive operation, which is reasonable.
The tool covers a specific set of domains and platforms plus a brand score, but notable gaps exist: no checks for major social platforms like Instagram, X, or TikTok, no bulk name checking, and no trademark search. These limitations are explicitly documented, so agents won't be misled, but the surface is incomplete for the broader domain of name availability.
Use this when someone asks whether one specific brand, business, product or project name is free as a domain name (.com, .net, .org, .app) and as a handle on Bluesky, Mastodon, GitLab, npm and PyPI, and wants the NameHound Brand Name Score (0-100) for it. Send one name per call, for example "Blue Fern Studio". The name is made into a handle (lowercase letters and numbers). Returns up to 4 rows, each with the check time, the official source and a link to the NameHound page for that name. Results are a snapshot: availability can change, the registrar or platform has the final say, and this is not legal or trademark advice (the score leaves out the trademark part until the person runs the free USPTO search themselves). Do not use it to brainstorm names, to check a list of names, for trademark clearance, or for Instagram, X, TikTok, YouTube, GitHub or other platforms it does not check. It has a small daily limit, so call it only for names the person actually cares about.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | Yes | A specific name, e.g. "Blue Fern Studio". 2-40 characters. Wildcards and "all" are not accepted. |
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
| note | No | |
| results | Yes | |
| more_info | Yes | |
| attribution | Yes | |
| result_count | Yes | |
| more_available | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, but the description adds substantial context beyond them: a snapshot caveat that availability can change, the registrar/platform having final say, the fact it is not legal or trademark advice, the explanation that the score omits the trademark component, and a self-imposed daily call limit. This is exactly the extra behavioral disclosure that annotations cannot carry.
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?
Front-loaded with the trigger, then call mechanics, then limits and disclaimers — a logical order. It is dense but each sentence carries new information (platform list, score, caveats, exclusions); the only slight drag is the long parenthetical about the trademark gap.
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?
Return shape is covered by the output schema, and the description still explains the row count and what each row contains (check time, source, NameHound link). Constraints, disclaimers, rate limits and exclusions are all present, so nothing an agent needs to invoke or interpret the call is missing.
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?
Schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds meaning the schema does not: 'Send one name per call' (clarifies no batching, in contrast to the strict string type) and the handle-derivation rule ('lowercase letters and numbers'). Only minor syntax detail is left, so it edges above baseline.
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?
States a specific verb and resource ('check whether one specific name is free as a domain and as a handle') plus the exact platforms checked (.com/.net/.org/.app, Bluesky, Mastodon, GitLab, npm, PyPI) and the Brand Name Score output. An agent knows precisely what this tool returns without opening the schema.
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?
Opens with the trigger condition ('Use this when someone asks whether one specific... name is free') and closes with explicit exclusions: no brainstorming, no list-checking, no trademark clearance, no unsupported platforms. It even names the alternative path for the trademark gap (the user runs the free USPTO search).
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Recent tool additions, removals, and schema changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
check_name_availabilityCheck if a brand name is free across domains, GitHub, npm and PyPI, and suggest available names.
Check brand name availability on Instagram, TikTok, X, YouTube, GitHub and more in one call
US & EU trademark, domain & handle clearance — a signed three-state verdict, not legal advice.
Checks if a project, brand or app name already exists: trademarks, domains, web and GitHub.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
