Skip to main content
Glama

Start a domain check

domain_check_start

Checks up to 100 domains (for buying expired or used domains): web archive history, Baidu index and backlinks, ending in a clean, suspect or rejected verdict with reasons. Charged per domain, about $0.02. Set dry_run first to see the exact cost and show it to the user. Runs in the background; read progress with domain_check_results.

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": {
      "domains": "<domains>"
    },
    "name": "domain_check_start"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
rulesNoOptional pass rules; anything left out uses the defaults. Fields: tlds (string[]), firstSeenBy (year), minStableYears, noHistory (pass|suspect|reject), minBaiduIndexed (0–10), minReferringDomains, maxSpamScore (0–100).
domainsYesDomains to check (max 100).
dry_runNoOnly return the cost; nothing is started or charged.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observed

TDQS

A4.5/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations only declare readOnlyHint=false and openWorldHint=true; the description adds the crucial context that isn't structured anywhere else: per-domain billing at roughly $0.02, the recommendation to dry-run before spending, the background/async execution model, and where results surface. For a paid, non-read-only batch job this is exactly the information an agent needs before invoking.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Roughly four sentences, front-loaded with what is checked and what comes out, then cost, then the dry_run workflow, then async retrieval. No redundant restatement of the name or filler wording; each clause carries distinct operational information.

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?

No output schema exists, and the description compensates by naming the verdict taxonomy and directing the agent to domain_check_results for progress and results. Combined with the schema's documented rules fields, an agent has enough to call this correctly, including cost-safety behavior.

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%, including the rules object's fields and defaults, so the schema already carries parameter meaning. The description adds only a workflow note for dry_run ('see the exact cost and show it to the user') and the 100-domain cap, which the schema also states, so it does not meaningfully exceed the baseline.

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?

Names a specific verb and resource ('Checks up to 100 domains'), states the target use case (buying expired or used domains), enumerates the checks performed (web archive history, Baidu index, backlinks) and the outcome shape (clean/suspect/rejected verdict with reasons). This clearly separates it from diagnostic siblings like domain_overview or backlinks_summary.

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?

Gives concrete operational guidance: set dry_run first, show the cost to the user, and read progress via domain_check_results rather than polling this tool. It lacks an explicit 'don't use this for X, use sibling Y instead' exclusion (e.g., live-domain inspection via domain_overview), which keeps it short of a 5.

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

Try in Browser

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.