Check domain availability across TLDs via RDAP. Set enriched=true for DNS, age, and Wayback history. (domain-dns; $0.004/call in USDC via x402, 50 free/day).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | Yes | ||
| tlds | No | ||
| enriched | No |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description discloses key behaviors (RDAP, enriched mode, cost) but lacks details on return values, error conditions, or required authorization, leaving gaps for an agent to anticipate tool behavior.
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?
Extremely concise with two sentences; front-loads the main purpose and adds key details without redundancy. Every sentence earns its place.
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?
For a tool with 3 parameters and no output schema, the description covers the core functionality but lacks parameter definitions and return value description, making it minimally adequate for correct invocation.
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?
Description mentions 'enriched=true' which hints at the boolean parameter, but fails to explain the 'name' (required) and 'tlds' parameters, leaving critical semantics undocumented given 0% schema coverage.
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?
Description clearly states the specific action ('Check domain availability') and resource ('across TLDs via RDAP'), and distinguishes itself from sibling tools like whois_lookup and dns_lookup by focusing on availability checking.
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?
Provides contextual guidance about the enriched mode and cost structure, but does not explicitly state when not to use or compare with alternatives, which would improve selection accuracy.
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, but there are overlapping pairs: unfurl_url/get_oembed/find_favicon all provide URL metadata, and render_page/screenshot_page both render a page (render_page can also screenshot). Descriptions help disambiguate, so only minor confusion is likely.
Tool names mix verb_noun patterns (check_domain, extract_content) with noun_verb patterns (dns_lookup, ssl_lookup, whois_lookup). Additionally, guard_inspect and guard_tx deviate from the typical verb-first style. The naming is readable but not consistent.
With 19 tools, the server is at the heavier end of the scale. While it covers a broad web-intel toolkit, several tools feel out of place for a 'fetcher' (e.g., generate_qr, guard_tx, guard_inspect), making the set feel bloated and unfocused.
The core web-fetching and analysis surface is well covered: DNS, WHOIS, SSL, headers, content extraction, rendering, screenshots, feeds, embeds, redirects, and robots. Missing is a simple raw HTML fetcher, but extract_content and render_page likely cover most needs. The addition of security and utility tools doesn't fill obvious gaps.
