get_recent_searchesRead what the caller has searched for lately, newest first. Use it to avoid re-suggesting something they have already looked at.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | How many to return. Defaults to 20. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds useful behavioral detail by specifying the result order ('newest first') and caller scoping, but does not describe return format or pagination behavior, which would be needed for full transparency.
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?
Two short sentences, with the core purpose front-loaded in the first sentence and the usage context in the second. No filler or redundancy; every word earns its place.
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 list tool with one optional parameter, rich annotations, and no nested objects, the description fully covers what is returned, the ordering, and the intended use case. Given the tool's low complexity, nothing essential is missing.
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% and the single parameter 'limit' is already documented with its default value ('Defaults to 20'). The tool description adds no parameter-level meaning 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 uses a specific verb ('Read') and resource ('what the caller has searched for lately'), and adds the ordering ('newest first'). This clearly distinguishes it from the sibling get_recent_generations, which would cover 'generations' rather than 'searches'.
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 second sentence, 'Use it to avoid re-suggesting something they have already looked at,' provides a clear, explicit usage context. It does not name alternatives or state when not to use it, but the intended scenario is unmistakable.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.