Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In

BizNameChecker

by com.biznamechecker
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

Check domain availability

check_domain_availability
Read-onlyIdempotent

Is this domain available or taken? Check a name across up to five TLDs using a registered-zone index, live DNS, and the registry's RDAP record. Each row names its status and source, and the answer includes the full results URL. Use check_business_name instead for a complete name check.

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": {
      "name": "<name>"
    },
    "name": "check_domain_availability"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
nameYesThe business, LLC, or trademark name from the conversation. An LLC designator is optional.
tldsNoUp to 5 top-level domains from the conversation. Omit to check com.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observed

TDQS

A4.1/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, openWorld, and non-destructive behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuine context beyond that: the lookup combines a registered-zone index, live DNS, and RDAP, and each result row carries a status and a source. It stops short of noting latency, rate limits, or that DNS/RDAP answers can be transient, which would be the final step to a 5.

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 the core question, then method, then return, then the alternative — a sensible ordering with no filler. The phrasing is slightly dense in places ("up to five TLDs" appears in both description and schema), but nothing is wasted.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

With no output schema, the description carries the burden of describing the return, and it does: rows with status and source plus a results URL. For a two-parameter read-only lookup that is close to sufficient; only tier-of-authority caveats about conflicting sources are absent.

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

Parameters3/5

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

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the meaning of name and tlds is already documented in structured form, including the default of com and the five-item cap. The description mostly restates "up to five TLDs" and "a name" without adding syntax, format, or edge-case guidance beyond the schema. Baseline 3 applies.

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?

Opens with a concrete question the tool answers ("Is this domain available or taken?") and then names the resource and scope: a name across up to five TLDs. It also names the sibling it is not (check_business_name), so the agent can discriminate 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.

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

Explicitly routes the agent to check_business_name for a "complete name check," which implies this tool is the narrow/domain-only option. It does not spell out the inverse condition ("use this when you only need domain availability") or mention the other siblings like check_social_handles, so one inference step remains.

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

All BizNameChecker 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