capabilities

Check domain expiry date and days remaining (RDAP)

domain_expiry

Read-onlyIdempotent

Registry expiry date for a domain read live from the authoritative registry RDAP server, with whole days remaining, the registry status codes, the registrar name and the registry's own last-update timestamp. A focused, cheaper subset of domain.registration for renewal monitoring and portfolio checks. Use when: When does this domain expire? Not for: You also need nameservers, DNSSEC, the creation date or the registrar's abuse contact - use domain.registration. Related: domain_registration. Price: USD 0.002/call (x402), 0.0015 (account key).

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`domain`	Yes	Bare domain name such as example.com or bbc.co.uk. Internationalised names are converted to punycode (IDNA). URLs, paths, ports and single-label names are rejected.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`data`	Yes	Capability output; full JSON Schema at https://api.eckari.com/v1/capabilities/domain.expiry
`meta`	Yes

TDQS

A4.5/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and no destruction. The description adds that the tool reads 'live from the authoritative registry RDAP server' and includes pricing details (USD 0.002/call). This provides useful behavioral context beyond annotations, though it could mention rate limits or authentication needs if any.

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?

The description is a single paragraph with clear front-loading: first sentence states the core functionality and outputs, second sentence outlines usage boundaries. Every sentence adds value with no redundancy or fluff.

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?

Given the low tool complexity (1 parameter, output schema present), the description fully covers what the tool returns, when to use it versus alternatives, and pricing. No gaps are evident for effective agent invocation.

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% for the single parameter 'domain'. The schema already thoroughly describes the parameter format (bare domain, punycode conversion, rejection of URLs/paths). The tool description does not add new parameter-level semantics beyond stating it accepts a domain name. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate given high schema coverage.

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 the tool's purpose: check domain expiry date and days remaining using RDAP. It lists specific outputs (registry status codes, registrar name, last-update timestamp). It also distinguishes itself from the sibling tool 'domain_registration' by noting it is a cheaper subset focused on renewal monitoring, thereby avoiding ambiguity.

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?

The description explicitly states when to use ('When does this domain expire?') and when not to ('Not for: You also need nameservers, DNSSEC... - use domain.registration'). It also mentions a related tool (domain_registration), providing clear guidance on alternatives.

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

All capabilities 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

A4.4/5.0

Disambiguation4/5

Tools are largely distinct, targeting specific entities (UK company, US company, domain, LEI, FX, location, parcel, weather) or sub-aspects (e.g., accounts vs. charges vs. directors). Overlap exists between company.uk.profile and company.uk.status (both contain status info, but the latter is cheaper and focused). Also, company.uk.filings and company.us.filings_latest could be confused if an agent generalizes 'filings' across jurisdictions.

Naming Consistency5/5

All tools follow a consistent pattern: domain_entity_subject (e.g., company_uk_accounts, domain_expiry, weather_us_alerts). Underscores and lower case are used throughout. Verbs are implied by the noun (e.g., 'search' for lookup, 'detect' for identification). No mixed conventions or unpredictable names.

Tool Count4/5

24 tools is on the high side but still reasonable for a general-purpose data server spanning multiple domains (company, domain, entity, fx, location, parcel, weather). Each domain gets a cohesive set, and the documentation justifies each tool. Could be slightly leaner if some niche tools (e.g., domain_expiry vs. registration) were merged, but overall scoping is acceptable.

Completeness4/5

Each domain offers good coverage: UK company tools cover CRUD-like operations (profile, status, search, filings, charges, directors, owners, registered office); similarly for US companies (profile, filings, resolve, latest filings). Weather has forecast, observation, alerts. Parcel only detects carrier (no tracking). Missing features like advanced filtering on company filings or less common domains, but core workflows are covered.

Resources

Need Help?