UCP Checker & Router

Check Domain

check-domain

Read-only

Check if a domain supports Universal Commerce Protocol (UCP).

Returns the UCP status, manifest version, capabilities, response latency,
and AI bot access policies (GPTBot, ClaudeBot, Google-Extended, etc.).

If the store's edge rate-limits the live attempt, the result says so and
reports the last OBSERVED state and when it was observed — an unobserved
attempt is never presented as a verdict about the store.

The domain is automatically normalized (removes protocol, www, paths).
Examples: "shopify.com", "https://www.example.com/path" → "example.com"

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`domain`	Yes	The domain to check for UCP support (e.g., "shopify.com", "example.com"). Protocol, www prefix, and paths are automatically removed.

TDQS

A4.3/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Even with readOnlyHint=true lowering the baseline, the description discloses significant behavioral detail: it returns observed state when rate-limited, never presents unobserved attempts as verdicts, and normalizes domains. This goes well beyond the annotation and schema.

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?

Every sentence earns its place: the primary purpose, returned data, rate-limit caveat, and normalization behavior are all stated without redundancy. The most important statement is front-loaded.

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?

For a single-parameter read-only tool with no output schema, the description supplies all needed context: what is returned, how failures are represented, how input is normalized, and example inputs. No critical gap remains.

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 coverage is 100% and the schema already explains that protocol, www, and paths are removed. The description adds concrete examples but no new semantic information beyond the schema, matching the baseline for high coverage.

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?

The description opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Check if a domain supports Universal Commerce Protocol (UCP).' This clearly distinguishes the tool from sibling search/discovery tools, and the returned fields further specify its scope.

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?

The first sentence implies the intended use case — verifying UCP support for a domain — but the description does not explicitly discuss when to prefer this tool over siblings or state exclusions. Guidance is implied rather than direct.

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

All UCP Checker & Router tools Inspect

Try in Browser

RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

A4.2/5.0

Disambiguation5/5

Each tool targets a distinct resource or action: domain status, store capabilities, product variants, categories, store listings, aggregate search, single-store search, and policies. The only similar pair, search-all and search-catalog, is clearly differentiated by scope in their descriptions.

Naming Consistency5/5

All tool names follow the same lowercase hyphenated verb_noun pattern, such as check-domain, list-stores, and search-catalog. Verbs are consistently placed first and accurately describe each action.

Tool Count5/5

Eight tools is well within the ideal range, and each tool serves a distinct step in the UCP discovery and shopping workflow. There are no redundant or extraneous tools.

Completeness4/5

The set covers UCP checking, store and category discovery, single-store and multi-store product search, product details, and policy lookup. Direct cart or checkout operations are absent, but discover-store can reveal such capabilities, making the core discovery workflow reasonably complete.

Resources

Need Help?