Nombrio Clearance Check

Naming Session — 8 pre-cleared names from a brief (your plan)

start_naming_session

Requires a connected plan (API key). Starts a Nombrio Naming Session: from a one-paragraph brief, generates up to 8 name ideas and pre-clears each with the same Clearance Check registries as check_name (US+EU+UK trademark, domains, social handles). Asynchronous — returns a sessionId; poll get_naming_session every ~10 s; typically 1–3 minutes. Uses one Naming Session from the plan (Clearance Report 10/30 days, Pro 30/month, Premium unlimited). Without a key it returns instructions to connect a plan.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`brief`	Yes	One paragraph: what the business/product/app does and for whom.
`abstractionLevel`	No
`soundPersonality`	No

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`note`	No
`links`	Yes
`status`	Yes
`sessionId`	No
`disclaimer`	Yes
`pollAfterSeconds`	No

TDQS

A4.3/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Behavior is well exposed beyond annotations: the tool is asynchronous, returns a sessionId, takes 1–3 minutes, must be polled every 10 seconds, consumes one plan credit, and behaves in a documented way without an API key. This addresses side effects, quota usage, and failure edge cases.

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?

Three dense sentences cover prerequisites, purpose, output, polling behavior, plan cost, and no-key behavior. Every sentence earns its place with no filler or redundancy.

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

Completeness4/5

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

The description covers all operational essentials: auth, plan consumption, async flow, polling interval, latency, and no-key behavior. It is mostly complete for an output-schema-bearing tool, but the lack of semantic guidance for the optional params leaves a material gap.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters2/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is only 33%. The description re-adds context for the brief parameter, but the two more nuanced parameters, abstractionLevel and soundPersonality, have no descriptions beyond their enum names. The tool description does not compensate for this gap or explain how to choose those values.

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 states a specific verb and resource: it starts a Nombrio Naming Session, generates up to 8 name ideas from a brief, and pre-clears them. It also distinguishes itself from siblings by naming get_naming_session as the polling tool and comparing its registries to check_name.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

The description gives clear use context: it requires a connected plan, consumes one Naming Session credit, is asynchronous, and should be polled via get_naming_session. It does not explicitly state when to prefer this over the sibling check tools, so it stops short of a full 5.

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

All Nombrio Clearance Check 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

A4.5/5.0

Disambiguation5/5

Each tool has a clearly separated responsibility: single-name clearance, multi-name ranked screening, starting a naming session, and polling that session. The one-vs-many and start-vs-get distinctions are explicit and cross-referenced, so an agent is unlikely to pick the wrong tool.

Naming Consistency5/5

All tool names follow the same snake_case verb_noun pattern: check_name, check_names, start_naming_session, get_naming_session. The pluralization and start/get pairs are semantically predictable.

Tool Count5/5

Four tools is a tight, appropriate count for the server's purpose: two cover the free clearance-check workflow and two cover the async naming-session workflow. No tool feels redundant, and none is missing from the core set.

Completeness4/5

The primary workflows are complete: one-name checks, batch checks with ranking, and starting/polling naming sessions. Minor gaps remain, such as no way to check the daily fair-use allowance and slightly inconsistent UK trademark coverage between the free and paid descriptions.

Resources

Need Help?