Profullstack

NicheDB: Search TLDs

nichedb_search_tlds

Read-onlyIdempotent

[NicheDB] Top-level domains: every label in IANA's root, with type, registry, RDAP server and each registrar's one-year register/renew/transfer price (Porkbun, Dynadot, Cloudflare, OVHcloud). Sorted by renewal by default, because the first year is a promotion. best is the cheapest USD price across registrars; with registrar it is that registrar's own price in its currency. Answers carry facet counts. trap: true keeps only labels that renew at 2x the first year or more.

Served by NicheDB (https://nichedb.dev/docs/mcp).

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "nichedb_search_tlds"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`q`	No	Text in the label, its Unicode form or the registry name (optional)
`idn`	No	true: internationalised labels only; false: ASCII only
`sort`	No	renew (default), register, transfer, restore, ratio, tld, registrars, type, manager, first_seen
`trap`	No	Only labels renewing at 2x the first year or more
`type`	No	generic, country-code, sponsored, generic-restricted, infrastructure, test; comma separated (optional)
`limit`	No	Rows to return, integer 1-500, default 50, e.g. 100
`order`	No	Sort direction: asc or desc, e.g. desc
`offset`	No	Rows to skip for paging, integer, default 0, e.g. 50
`status`	No	delegated (default), removed, or all, e.g. removed
`manager`	No	Exact registry name, as IANA writes it (optional)
`max_renew`	No	Highest renewal price (optional)
`registrar`	No	porkbun, dynadot, cloudflare, ovh (optional): only labels it sells, at its prices
`max_register`	No	Highest first-year price (optional)

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedNov 11, 2026

TDQS

A3.8/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, closed-world behavior, and the description adds genuinely new context: results are ordered by renewal by default for a stated reason, responses carry facet counts, and `registrar` switches pricing from a cross-registrar USD minimum to that registrar's own currency. It stops short of describing paging/volume behavior or error cases, which keeps it below a 5.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The payload summary and the sort rationale are front-loaded, and the `best`/`registrar` and `trap` clarifications are tight and information-dense. The trailing service-attribution line is boilerplate that does no work for tool selection but is minimal.

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 13-parameter, zero-required search tool with no output schema and full schema coverage, the description supplies the missing conceptual layer: dataset scope, default ordering, facet counts in answers, and the two pricing modes. Only the response shape beyond facet counts and any paging/limit expectations remain unstated.

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

Parameters4/5

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

Schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds real meaning the schema does not: what `best` means (cheapest USD across registrars) and how `registrar` reinterprets it as that registrar's price in its own currency, plus the rationale for the default `renew` sort and the 2x threshold behind `trap`. Other parameters (limit, offset, status, manager) are left to the schema.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description names the resource precisely (every IANA root label) and enumerates the payload fields (type, registry, RDAP server, per-registrar one-year prices), so an agent knows this is a filtered/sorted TLD search over a complete root-zone dataset. It does not explicitly contrast with singular-lookup siblings such as nichedb_get_tld or domain-checking tools, so it falls short of a 5.

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?

Usage is implied rather than stated: the note that results default to renewal sorting 'because the first year is a promotion' and the explanation of `trap` effectively tell the agent when those filters matter. However, there is no explicit when-to-use vs. when-not guidance and no named alternative for single-label lookups among the siblings.

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

All Profullstack tools Inspect

Try in Browser

One endpoint for every MCP toolRayrun runs every MCP server behind one URL and holds the credentials. Each call is decided per client, tool, and argument, then recorded.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources

Need Help?