EnCirca Domains

get_domain_requirements

Read-onlyIdempotent

Return MCP-only restricted TLD eligibility requirements and checkout flow choices so the customer can be told what information checkout will require.

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "get_domain_requirements"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`tld`	No	TLD to inspect, with or without leading dot.
`domains`	No
`partner_id`	No	Optional partner id used to resolve a matching restricted-TLD flow.
`default_tld`	No
`requirement_use_case`	No	Restricted-TLD flow id when a TLD has multiple eligibility paths, e.g. preapproved or approval-help.

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`success`	No
`requirements`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedAug 18, 2026

TDQS

B3.2/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds behavioral context by specifying that it only applies to 'MCP-only restricted TLDs' and returns 'checkout flow choices', which is useful but not extensive. No contradictions with annotations.

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 a single sentence of 25 words, front-loaded with the main action. It is concise with no wasted words, but the lack of structure (e.g., bullet points) and the ambiguous 'MCP-only' slightly detract from efficiency.

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

Completeness3/5

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

Given the tool has 5 parameters and an output schema, the description is moderately complete. It states the return type (eligibility requirements and checkout flow choices) but does not explain the scope (only restricted TLDs) or the optional nature of all parameters. The output schema covers return values, so that is not a gap.

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 60%, which is not low (<50%), so baseline 3 applies. The description adds no parameter-level information beyond what the schema already provides. It does not compensate for the two parameters missing descriptions (default_tld and possibly others).

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description specifies the verb 'Return' and the resource 'MCP-only restricted TLD eligibility requirements and checkout flow choices', which clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_domain_details. However, the term 'MCP-only' is ambiguous and may confuse the agent, slightly reducing clarity.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines2/5

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

The description implies the tool is used to inform customers about checkout requirements, but it provides no explicit guidance on when to use it versus alternatives (e.g., check_domain_price for pricing, get_domain_details for general info). No exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned.

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

All EnCirca Domains tools Inspect

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

Need Help?