Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In

Argorant

by com.argorant
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

Suggest domain names for new inboxes

argorant_suggest_inbox_domains
Read-onlyIdempotent

Suggest available domain names for new sending mailboxes, based on the user's company website, each with its first-year and yearly renewal price in cents for each currency. Use it when the user wants other names than the ones argorant_quote_inboxes picked; for a price for the mailboxes use argorant_quote_inboxes. A brand name alone is not enough, so ask the user for their website. The endings on offer are .com, .net, .org, .co, .sbs, .biz and .info, and the answer's endings field has the current list. It only checks which names are free; nothing is reserved, ordered or charged. More in the docs at https://docs.argorant.com/docs/agents/tools#new-inboxes

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "company": "<company>"
    },
    "name": "argorant_suggest_inbox_domains"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
limitNoHow many names to suggest, up to 60 (default 20).
endingNoOptional, one of .com, .net, .org, .co, .sbs, .biz, .info
companyYesThe company website, such as linfieldhq.com.

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
resultYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observed

TDQS

A4.6/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent and non-destructive, but the description adds the crucial operational caveat that it only checks availability — 'nothing is reserved, ordered or charged' — which prevents an agent from treating suggestions as a purchase step. It also links docs for deeper detail, though it says nothing about latency or result freshness.

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?

Front-loads purpose, then usage, then caveats in a single well-ordered paragraph with no filler. Slightly overpacked — the ending list is enumerated in prose while the answer's endings field is also pointed to, a mild redundancy.

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?

Although an output schema exists, the description still signals the return shape (first-year and renewal price in cents per currency, endings list), which is the most decision-relevant part for an agent. For a read-only, three-parameter lookup tool, nothing needed to call it correctly is missing.

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

Parameters4/5

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

Schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, and the description earns more by clarifying that 'company' means the website rather than a brand name — a real ambiguity the schema example alone doesn't settle. The endings list mirrors the 'ending' parameter and notes the response's endings field is authoritative.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Suggest available domain names for new sending mailboxes') plus the basis ('based on the user's company website'). It also names the sibling argorant_quote_inboxes and defines the boundary, so an agent can route between them without opening schemas.

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?

Explicitly says when to use it ('when the user wants other names than the ones argorant_quote_inboxes picked') and when to use the alternative ('for a price for the mailboxes use argorant_quote_inboxes'). It even adds a prerequisite rule: a brand name is insufficient, so ask for the website first.

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

All Argorant toolsInspect
Try in Browser
One endpoint for every MCP toolRayrun runs every MCP server behind one URL and holds the credentials. Each call is decided per client, tool, and argument, then recorded.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources