domain_checkCheck if a domain is registered via official RDAP: availability, registrar, created/expiry dates, nameservers.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| domain | Yes | e.g. example.com |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, covering the safety profile. The description adds context by specifying the data source (official RDAP) and the returned fields, which goes beyond the annotations. There is no mention of rate limits or failure modes, but for a simple read-only tool this is sufficient, earning a 4.
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 a single, well-constructed sentence that front-loads the core purpose and lists the key outputs. It is extremely concise with no filler.
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?
With only one parameter and no nested objects, the description adequately covers the tool's purpose and behavior. An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained. It is complete for its simplicity, though it could mention error conditions for unsupported TLDs, which is a minor gap.
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% (single 'domain' parameter with a 'e.g. example.com' description). The tool description does not add parameter-specific details, so it meets the baseline of 3 without enriching the parameter understanding.
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 specifies a clear action ('Check if a domain is registered') via a specific protocol (official RDAP) and lists the resource details returned (availability, registrar, dates, nameservers). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like ssl_check, which addresses a different aspect of domain inspection.
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 its use for domain registration checks but does not explicitly state when to use it instead of sibling tools like ssl_check. No exclusions or alternative guidance is provided, so usage is implied rather than explicit.
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 are clearly separated by domain, but the cluster of domain-related tools (domain_check, ssl_check, china_reachability) could be confused by an agent looking for a generic 'check this domain' operation. The descriptions help clarify each one's specific focus, so overall ambiguity is low.
Naming conventions are mixed: some tools use a verb-first pattern (check_vulns, get_weather, transpile_sql), while others use a noun-first pattern (domain_check, stock_quote, ip_lookup). Verbs are also inconsistent (check, get, lookup, transpile), and some names are pure noun phrases (exchange_rate, package_info). This lack of a uniform pattern makes the set feel disjointed.
At 11 tools, the count is within a reasonable range and each tool has a distinct purpose. The broad scope makes the set feel somewhat unfocused, but there is no redundancy or excessive bloat.
The server intends to provide live data, but coverage is shallow within each category. For example, weather only gives current conditions and a short forecast, package tools only have info and vulnerabilities, and there is no historical data for stocks. The overall domain is vague, so significant gaps exist for a general-purpose live-data server.