save_domainAdd a name to the caller's shortlist. Accepts a full domain or a bare label — the site saves bare labels when a name is being compared across several extensions.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| domain | Yes | A full domain or a bare label. |
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?
注释已声明readOnlyHint=false和idempotentHint=false，描述中的'Add'与之一致。描述添加了bare label保存行为的上下文，但未提及重复保存或覆盖行为。注释未提供更多细节，描述也未能补充副作用信息，但无矛盾，处于有注释时的最低合理水平。
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?
两句话，信息密度高：第一句定义核心动作，第二句解释参数变体的特殊用途。无冗余，每个词都有价值，结构清晰。
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?
对于单参数、无输出schema的简单工具，描述覆盖了动作、输入格式和特殊场景。缺乏返回值或错误处理说明，但工具简单，基本信息足以让agent正确调用。
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覆盖率为100%，domain参数已有基本描述。描述额外解释了bare label'被比较时保存'的场景，这为agent提供了何时传递裸标签的决策上下文，超越了schema的简单说明。
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?
描述明确说明'Add a name to the caller's shortlist'，动词和资源清晰，且通过'bare label'的说明与兄弟工具（如add_favorite_tld）区分。标题略显笼统，但描述具体化了保存的目标列表和输入格式，agent能准确理解工具用途。
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?
描述提供了bare label的使用场景（当在多个扩展名间比较名称时），但未明确说明何时使用save_domain而非替代方案，也没有排除条件。使用指导是隐含的，缺乏与add_favorite_tld等兄弟工具的直接对比。
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.