TLD Bench

Registrar profile

get_registrar

Read-onlyIdempotent

Use this when the user asks about a registrar: its country, group, size (gTLD domains under management), how many extensions it sells, and how fresh our prices for it are. Accepts our id, its name or an IANA id.

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`registrar`	Yes	a registrar's id (porkbun), name (Porkbun) or IANA id (1861)

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`url`	Yes	the page on tldbench.com with the full comparison
`registrar`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed2 schema fields changedNov 6, 2026

addedOutput schema / properties / registrar / properties / note

Added value: +{
+  "anyOf": [
+    {
+      "description": "A short, sourced note about the registrar's prices (not a price we rank by).",
+      "properties": {
+        "checked_on": {
+          "anyOf": [
+            {
+              "examples": [
+                "2026-11-05"
+              ],
+              "format": "date",
+              "type": "string"
+            },
+            {
+              "type": "null"
+            }
+          ]
+        },
+        "text": {
+          "examples": [
+            "NameSilo's free discount program prices .com at $12.00 (retail $19.99)."
+          ],
+          "type": "string"
+        },
+        "url": {
+          "description": "where the note's facts come from",
+          "type": [
+            "string",
+            "null"
+          ]
+        }
+      },
+      "required": [
+        "text",
+        "url",
+        "checked_on"
+      ],
+      "type": "object"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "null"
+    }
+  ]
+}

addedOutput schema / properties / registrar / properties / pricing_tier

Added value: +{
+  "description": "retail: anyone can buy at these prices; reseller: the prices are a reseller account's tier (eNom's Silver), left out of consumer rankings unless include_resellers=true",
+  "enum": [
+    "retail",
+    "reseller"
+  ],
+  "type": "string"
+}

First observedNov 6, 2026

TDQS

A3.6/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, closed-world and non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds a behavioral signal by mentioning price freshness is reported, but it says nothing about failure behavior for an unknown registrar, and the enumerated return fields largely duplicate the output schema.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the trigger condition and then the payload. The second sentence (accepted identifier forms) restates the schema, so it earns slightly less than full marks, but there is no filler.

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 one-parameter read tool with a full output schema and complete annotations, the description tells the agent when to reach for it and what it yields, which is enough to call it correctly. The only omission is error/not-found behavior, which is minor given the rich structured fields.

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?

Schema description coverage is 100% and the single parameter's description already states the three accepted identifier forms verbatim. The description repeats that same information rather than adding syntax, precedence, or ambiguity rules (e.g. what happens if a name collides with an id).

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 (registrar profile) and enumerates exactly what it returns — country, group, gTLD domains under management, extension count, price freshness. That specificity makes it clearly distinct from siblings like cheapest_registrar or get_tld without naming them explicitly.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

It gives a clear trigger condition ("Use this when the user asks about a registrar") and implies the right context, but names no alternatives or exclusions — e.g. it never says to use cheapest_registrar instead when the user wants price rankings.

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

All TLD Bench 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?