Onymu

Check social handles

check_usernames

Read-onlyIdempotent

Check whether a username is free on X, Instagram, Facebook, YouTube, TikTok, Snapchat, Pinterest, LinkedIn, Discord, GitHub, Telegram and Twitch, and how many apps already carry the name on the App Store and Google Play. Pair it with search_domains when someone is picking a brand name: a name is only really available if the domain AND the handles are. Handle answers are grouped into taken, available, unknown and invalid. unknown means the check could not be completed (the platform blocked it, or timed out) and must NEVER be reported as available. invalid means that platform's own username rules reject the string, so it cannot be claimed there at all. Two platforms answer a narrower question than their name suggests: linkedin checks the company vanity URL (linkedin.com/company/), not a personal /in/ profile, and facebook can only ever report taken or unknown — its logged-out surface cannot tell a free handle from a private one, so it never reports available and its absence from the taken list is not evidence the name is free. The two app stores are reported separately under appStores, NOT as handles: neither store has a username namespace, so they answer how many listings are already named this. Read named for 'apps called this' and matched for 'apps with this word in the title'; scanned is the denominator and truncated: true means the counts are floors. Omit platforms to check all fourteen. Checking several names at once skips X, which bans on volume.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`platforms`	No	Platform ids to limit the check to: x, instagram, facebook, youtube, tiktok, snapchat, pinterest, linkedin, discord, github, telegram, twitch, appstore, googleplay. Omit for all fourteen.
`usernames`	Yes	Handles to check, without an @ — e.g. ["northbeam"].

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.

First observedSep 6, 2026

TDQS

A5/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Although annotations already mark this as read-only, open-world, idempotent, and non-destructive, the description adds critical behavioral detail: unknown must never be reported as available, facebook can only return taken or unknown, linkedin checks company vanity URLs, app store results are separate, and counts can be floors when truncated. These are exactly the kind of non-obvious behaviors an agent needs to interpret results correctly.

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 long but every sentence earns its place for a tool with this many platform-specific exceptions. It front-loads the core purpose, then covers result grouping, unusual platform behaviors, app store semantics, and invocation caveats in a logical order. The density is justified by the complexity.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description carries the full burden of explaining return semantics. It does so thoroughly: result categories, app store fields, boolean flags like truncated, and platform caveats. Given the tool's complexity and the absence of an output schema, this description is complete enough for a well-informed agent to call it successfully.

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

Parameters5/5

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

The schema already documents the two parameters at 100% coverage, but the description adds substantial meaning beyond the schema: what each platform-specific result means, why appstore and googleplay are not handles, the distinction between named, matched, scanned, and truncated, and the volume-based X skip. This materially improves an agent's ability to choose and interpret parameters.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Check whether a username is free on X, Instagram, Facebook...' and immediately distinguishes this handle-checking tool from domain-focused siblings like search_domains. It clearly names the exact scope and the result categories, so an agent cannot confuse it with any other tool in the sibling list.

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 tells the agent when to use this tool: pair it with search_domains when someone is picking a brand name, because availability requires both the domain and the handles. It also gives operational guidance such as omitting platforms to check all fourteen and warns that checking several names at once skips X, which directly informs invocation decisions.

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

All Onymu 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

A4.2/5.0

Disambiguation5/5

Each tool targets a distinct resource or action: domain availability search, username checking, candidate generation, saved domains, favorite TLDs, and recent history are clearly separated. There is no meaningful overlap that would cause an agent to select the wrong tool.

Naming Consistency4/5

Tool names follow a mostly consistent verb_noun snake_case pattern, but there are minor variations: favorites use add/remove/list, saved domains use save/remove/list, and history uses get_recent_* rather than list_*. These are predictable per resource but not perfectly uniform across the set.

Tool Count5/5

Eleven tools is well-scoped for the domain of brand name availability. Each tool earns its place and maps to a clear step in the workflow: searching domains, checking usernames, generating candidates, saving names, managing favorite TLDs, and reviewing recent activity.

Completeness5/5

The tool surface covers the full lifecycle of the domain: searching availability, checking social handles, generating candidates, saving/removing/listings saved names, managing favorite extensions, and reading recent history. There are no obvious dead ends or missing operations that would block the primary workflows.

Resources

Need Help?