Per-registrar registration and renewal price history for one extension.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| tld | Yes | ||
| api_key | No | Your TLDers API key. Only needed if your client cannot send an Authorization header or use a ?key= URL. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Input schema / properties / api_keyAdded value: +{
+ "description": "Your TLDers API key. Only needed if your client cannot send an Authorization header or use a ?key= URL.",
+ "type": "string"
+}Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It says what data is returned (price history per registrar) but does not disclose read-only status, authentication requirements for the tld call (api_key is only described in the schema), rate limits, date-range defaults, or return granularity.
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?
A single, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It efficiently conveys the resource and scope without unnecessary elaboration.
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 two-parameter read-only tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description identifies the data domain but omits return structure, time range, and authentication context. It is minimally adequate but leaves an agent without a full picture of what to expect from the response.
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 50%: tld has no schema description, while api_key does. The description adds meaning for tld by specifying 'one extension', clarifying that the parameter is a single TLD extension rather than a domain. It adds no further parameter details, so it only partially compensates for the schema gap.
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?
States a specific resource (per-registrar registration and renewal price history for one extension) and distinguishes historical data from current pricing, which helps separate it from get_tld_prices. However, it does not explicitly name or contrast with any sibling tool, so an agent must infer the distinction from the word 'history'.
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 description gives no explicit when-to-use guidance or alternatives. It implies the tool is for historical pricing, but there is no statement about when to choose this over get_tld_prices, compare_tlds, or find_cheapest_tlds, leaving the agent without routing help.
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.