check_domain_availabilityCheck domain availability for a brand name. Returns status (available, parked, commercially used, or taken) for each TLD, plus .com variations (e.g., getbrand.com, brandhq.com).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| tlds | No | TLDs to check. Defaults to com/ai/app/io/co when omitted. | |
| brand_name | Yes | Brand name to check (e.g., "Moonlight Coffee") |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Input schema / properties / tlds / defaultPrevious value: -[
- "com",
- "ai",
- "io"
-]New value: +[
+ "com",
+ "ai",
+ "app",
+ "io",
+ "co"
+]Input schema / properties / tlds / descriptionPrevious value: -"TLDs to check"New value: +"TLDs to check. Defaults to com/ai/app/io/co when omitted."Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare the operation read-only, open-world, and idempotent; the description adds meaningful behavioral detail by enumerating the possible statuses and the inclusion of .com variations. This goes beyond the annotation-only baseline without contradicting it.
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 compact two-sentence definition with no filler. The core purpose is front-loaded and the added return detail is essential and concise.
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?
For a simple read-only lookup tool with fully documented parameters and no output schema, the description covers both input scope and output shape. Nothing critical is missing for an agent to invoke it correctly.
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 100%, with both brand_name and tlds already documented. The description adds no extra parameter-level semantics beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.
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 verb ('Check') and the resource ('domain availability for a brand name'), and it enumerates the output statuses and .com variations. It is specific enough to distinguish from sibling tools like check_brand_availability.
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?
The description implies when to use the tool: whenever an agent needs to check domain availability for a brand. However, it provides no explicit guidance on when not to use it or how it relates to sibling tools such as check_brand_availability.
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.