Generate AI-backed domain ideas from a business brief and pre-check availability locally across partner-appropriate TLDs.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| tlds | No | ||
| brief | Yes | ||
| limit | No | ||
| partner_id | No | ESB partner id. Optional if ENCIRCA_MCP_DEFAULT_PARTNER_ID is set. | |
| default_tld | No | ||
| include_unavailable | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| results | No | ||
| success | No | ||
| partnerId | No | ||
| recommended | No |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already convey readOnlyHint and openWorldHint. The description adds 'AI-backed' and 'pre-check availability locally', which provide useful context about generative behavior and local availability checking. There is no contradiction 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.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence that front-loads the main action and purpose. Every word is necessary and contributes to understanding. No redundancy or unnecessary detail.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool has 6 parameters and an output schema, the description is too brief. It does not explain key parameters like limit and include_unavailable. While the output schema covers return values, the lack of parameter guidance leaves the agent with incomplete understanding.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is only 17% (partner_id). The description hints at 'brief' (business brief) and 'partner-appropriate TLDs' (tlds, partner_id), but does not explain limit, include_unavailable, or default_tld. The description partially compensates for the low coverage but leaves gaps.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool generates domain ideas using AI from a business brief and checks availability across TLDs. This is a specific verb+resource combination that distinguishes it from sibling tools like check_domain_price or get_domain_details, which operate on existing domains.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No explicit guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description only explains what it does, without mentioning siblings or conditions for use. The agent must infer the use case from the purpose alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Most tools have distinct purposes (pricing, checkout, account info, domain management), though 'get_account_identity' and 'get_account_profile' overlap somewhat in returning account details. Descriptions help differentiate them, but an agent could confuse which one to use for a given account query.
Tool names consistently use verb_noun pattern (e.g., check_domain_price, list_my_domains, get_domain_details). Minor inconsistency: 'suggest_available_domains' uses adjective_noun instead of noun_noun, but overall the pattern is clear and predictable.
With 10 tools, the set is well-scoped for a domain management server covering pricing, checkout, account info, domain listing, and invoicing. Each tool serves a clear function without bloat.
The set covers core domain lookup, pricing, checkout, and account management, but lacks operations like domain registration confirmation, renewal, or transfer management. Gaps exist for lifecycle operations beyond initial purchase, which an agent might need.
