dotsweep

List checkable extensions with prices

list_tlds

Read-only

Every extension this server can check, with registration and renewal price, minimum registration term, and any eligibility restriction on who may register it. Use before check_domains when the extensions to check are not already decided: the catalogue is wider than the handful most people can name, prices vary by more than an order of magnitude, and min_term_years means the first bill can be a multiple of the price shown. An entry carrying vendor is priced by a registrar other than the one quoted by default, because that one does not sell the extension — the number is still real, it just belongs to the named registrar. An entry with no price at all means no registrar here sells it, which is a fact about this catalogue and not about the extension: several are sold perfectly well by registrars we hold no feed for, so an absent price leaves availability an open question rather than settling it. All prices are USD.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

TDQS

A4.8/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Annotations indicate readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, and the description adds context beyond them: vendor-priced entries are explained, and missing prices are clarified as a catalogue limitation rather than an extension property. This significantly enriches behavioral understanding.

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?

The description is somewhat long but every sentence adds meaningful detail. It is front-loaded with the core purpose, then usage guidance, then caveats. Slightly verbose but not wasteful.

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?

With no output schema, the description carries the burden of explaining return values. It thoroughly covers price, minimum term, eligibility restrictions, vendor indicator, and the meaning of absent prices, making it complete for a list tool.

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?

The tool has no parameters, and the baseline for zero parameters is 4. The description doesn't need to explain parameters; it focuses on output semantics instead, which is appropriate.

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?

The description clearly states that the tool lists every extension the server can check, along with registration/renewal prices, minimum term, and eligibility restrictions. It distinguishes itself from siblings (check_domains, whois) by focusing on the catalogue aspect.

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 instructs to use before check_domains when extensions are not already decided, and provides concrete reasons (catalogue wider than assumed, price variance, min term affecting first bill). This gives clear when-to-use guidance and implies the alternative.

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

All dotsweep tools Inspect

Try in Browser

RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

A4.6/5.0

Disambiguation5/5

Each tool has a clearly distinct purpose: check_domains checks availability and pricing, list_tlds enumerates supported extensions, and whois retrieves registry records. No overlap in functionality, and descriptions reinforce the boundaries.

Naming Consistency4/5

Two tools follow a clear verb_noun pattern (check_domains, list_tlds), while whois is a conventional standalone command rather than a verb_noun phrase. This is a minor deviation and does not create confusion.

Tool Count5/5

Three tools is an appropriate scope for a domain information server, covering the core operations (list, check, whois) without unnecessary redundancy. Each tool serves a distinct and necessary function.

Completeness5/5

The surface covers the expected operations for domain availability and registration data: discovering supported TLDs, checking availability with pricing, and retrieving full registry records. There are no obvious dead ends or missing lifecycle steps for this domain.

Resources

Need Help?