Remove a favorite TLD
remove_favorite_tldDestructive
Drop one extension from the caller's favorites.
Input Schema
TableJSON Schema
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| tld | Yes | The extension to remove, with or without the dot. |
Onymu
by com.onymu
Schema Changelog
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
- First observed
TDQS
A4/5.0
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description adds 'caller's favorites', clarifying the scope of the operation beyond the annotations. It does not conflict with the destructiveHint and idempotentHint annotations, though it does not detail side effects like behavior when the TLD is not already a favorite.
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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no redundant wording. Every word adds value and the core action and scope are communicated efficiently.
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?
For a simple one-parameter destructive tool, the description together with the schema and annotations is largely sufficient. Minor gaps include no mention of the outcome when the TLD is not currently a favorite, but this is unlikely to prevent correct invocation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema fully documents the 'tld' parameter, including the 'with or without the dot' detail. The description only repeats the concept as 'extension' without adding new semantic meaning, so the baseline 3 is appropriate.
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 uses a specific verb ('Drop') and a clear resource ('one extension from the caller's favorites'), which directly states the tool's action. It is easily distinguished from sibling tools like add_favorite_tld and list_favorite_tlds.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The context of removing from 'the caller's favorites' implies when to use the tool, but there is no explicit guidance on when to choose it over alternatives or what conditions apply. The usage is inferred rather than stated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Try in Browser
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.