Skip to main content
Glama

domainee

by dev.domainee
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

Domain Availability Checker

tools_domain_availability_checker
Read-onlyIdempotent

Free public API. Check availability of a name across one or more TLDs. Pass a name (no TLD) and an optional tlds array.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
nameYesBare name without TLD, e.g. `mybrand`.
tldsNoOptional list of TLDs to check, e.g. ['com', 'io', 'dev']. Default: a standard SaaS set.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
okYesAlways true here; failures return an isError result instead.
dataYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed1 schema field changed
    • changedOutput schema / (root)
      Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+  "$schema": "http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#",
+  "additionalProperties": true,
+  "description": "Availability of the name per TLD.",
+  "properties": {
+    "data": {
+      "additionalProperties": true,
+      "properties": {
+        "name": {
+          "type": "string"
+        },
+        "results": {
+          "items": {
+            "additionalProperties": true,
+            "properties": {
+              "available": {
+                "description": "true = appears unregistered, false = registered, null = could not tell.",
+                "type": [
+                  "boolean",
+                  "null"
+                ]
+              },
+              "fqdn": {
+                "type": "string"
+              },
+              "method": {
+                "description": "rdap | dns | null.",
+                "type": [
+                  "string",
+                  "null"
+                ]
+              },
+              "registrarHint": {
+                "type": [
+                  "string",
+                  "null"
+                ]
+              },
+              "tld": {
+                "type": "string"
+              }
+            },
+            "required": [
+              "tld",
+              "fqdn",
+              "available",
+              "method"
+            ],
+            "type": "object"
+          },
+          "type": "array"
+        }
+      },
+      "required": [
+        "name",
+        "results"
+      ],
+      "type": "object"
+    },
+    "ok": {
+      "description": "Always true here; failures return an isError result instead.",
+      "type": "boolean"
+    }
+  },
+  "required": [
+    "ok",
+    "data"
+  ],
+  "type": "object"
+}
  2. First observed

TDQS

B3.4/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful context - 'Free public API' implies no auth/credential setup - and notes the default TLD set behavior, but says nothing about rate limits or what an unavailable-vs-invalid result looks like.

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 short sentences with zero waste; the 'Free public API' fact is front-loaded and each sentence carries a distinct piece of information.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need no explanation. For a simple two-parameter read tool with full annotation coverage, the description is essentially complete, missing only explicit sibling routing.

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%, so both parameters are already fully documented in the schema, including the 'no TLD' constraint and the default TLD set. The description restates this without adding new syntax or format detail, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Check availability of a name across one or more TLDs.' That clearly distinguishes it from siblings like whois_lookup or domain_age_checker, though it never names an alternative explicitly.

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

Usage Guidelines2/5

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

There is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no exclusions, and no reference to sibling tools. Usage is only implied by the tool's stated function.

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

All domainee toolsInspect
Try in Browser
Shareable, User-Owned Context BackendPeople, applications, and agents read, write, and coordinate together in one context lake. Reach it over MCP, a CLI, a Python SDK, or REST.fulcradynamics.comAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources