Skip to main content
Glama

TLDMath

by com.tldmath
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

Recommend names and TLDs for a project

recommend_names
Read-only

Given a short project description, recommend 3-5 TLDs (best fit first, with reasons) and 10 brandable names, each screened for availability on the top 3 TLDs (or up to 3 the user picks) with the cheapest standard 2-year cost. Optional: a naming style, a word every name must contain (anywhere, at the start or at the end), and a maximum length. Nothing is stored. Run check_domain on a pick for live per-registrar prices.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
tldsNoUp to 3 extensions to check the names on, e.g. ["com","ai"]. Default: the top 3 recommended.
styleNocoined = invented words; evocative = real words that suggest the feeling; descriptive = says what it does; compound = two short words joined.
max_lengthNoLongest name allowed, in characters.
descriptionYesWhat the project is, who it is for, and its tone. One to three sentences.
include_wordNoA word every name must contain, e.g. "pay".
word_positionNoWhere include_word goes. Default anywhere.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed5 schema fields changed
    • addedInput schema / properties / include_word
      Added value: +{
+  "description": "A word every name must contain, e.g. \"pay\".",
+  "maxLength": 10,
+  "minLength": 2,
+  "type": "string"
+}
    • addedInput schema / properties / max_length
      Added value: +{
+  "description": "Longest name allowed, in characters.",
+  "maximum": 15,
+  "minimum": 5,
+  "type": "integer"
+}
    • addedInput schema / properties / style
      Added value: +{
+  "description": "coined = invented words; evocative = real words that suggest the feeling; descriptive = says what it does; compound = two short words joined.",
+  "enum": [
+    "coined",
+    "evocative",
+    "descriptive",
+    "compound"
+  ],
+  "type": "string"
+}
    • addedInput schema / properties / tlds
      Added value: +{
+  "description": "Up to 3 extensions to check the names on, e.g. [\"com\",\"ai\"]. Default: the top 3 recommended.",
+  "items": {
+    "type": "string"
+  },
+  "maxItems": 3,
+  "type": "array"
+}
    • addedInput schema / properties / word_position
      Added value: +{
+  "description": "Where include_word goes. Default anywhere.",
+  "enum": [
+    "anywhere",
+    "start",
+    "end"
+  ],
+  "type": "string"
+}
  2. First observed

TDQS

A4.3/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already cover the read-only, non-destructive, open-world profile with lower disclosure burden. The description adds real value beyond them: 'Nothing is stored', the exact result cardinality (3-5 TLDs, 10 names), availability screening on the top 3 TLDs, and cheapest standard 2-year cost basis. It does not explain run-to-run variability despite idempotentHint=false, a minor gap.

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?

Three dense sentences, front-loaded with the core output contract, then optional inputs, then the hand-off to check_domain. Every clause carries information and nothing is repeated from the schema.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness5/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

No output schema exists, yet the description supplies the return shape (3-5 ranked TLDs with reasons, 10 names, screening status, 2-year cost), which is exactly what an agent needs. Combined with the sibling hand-off, nothing essential is missing.

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 all six parameters are documented in the schema itself, so baseline is 3. The description only names the optional parameters (style, include_word, position, max length) without adding syntax or constraints beyond what the schema already states.

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?

States a specific verb (recommend) and resources (TLDs and brandable names) with exact output counts and screening scope. It is clearly distinguishable from siblings like check_domain, which it names for a different task.

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?

Gives clear context ('Given a short project description') and routes the agent to check_domain for live per-registrar prices, implicitly framing this as the screening/ideation step. It lacks an explicit when-not condition, but the alternative routing is well specified.

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

All TLDMath toolsInspect
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