Skip to main content
Glama

get_tld

Read-onlyIdempotent

One top-level domain: type, registry, RDAP server, when it entered or left the root, every registrar price (register, renew, transfer, restore, promotions, privacy, restrictions) and its change history.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "tld": "<tld>"
    },
    "name": "get_tld"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
tldYesThe label, with or without the dot; Unicode or xn-- both work

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Added

TDQS

A3.7/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, closed-world and non-destructive, so safety is covered; the description earns credit for disclosing the payload's richness (promotions, privacy, restrictions, historical root dates, change history). It does not say how an unknown or non-existent TLD is handled, which is the notable remaining gap.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence: the resource is named first, then the returned fields are enumerated compactly in apposition. The long parenthetical price list is dense but each item carries informational value.

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?

With no output schema, the description is the only place describing return values, and it does so thoroughly across four field families. Missing only edge-case behavior (unknown TLD, whether history is truncated) for a full score.

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?

Only one parameter and schema coverage is 100%, so the schema already explains the label form, dot-optional and xn-- handling. The description adds no parameter-level detail beyond the schema, making the baseline 3 appropriate.

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?

States a specific resource (a single top-level domain) and enumerates exactly what comes back: type, registry, RDAP server, root dates, registrar prices, change history. The opening 'One top-level domain' implicitly separates it from the list-style search_tlds sibling, though that sibling is never named.

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?

Usage is implied only: 'One' suggests single-record lookup versus search_tlds, and 'change history' hints at overlap with tld_changes, but neither alternative nor a when-to-use condition is stated. An agent must infer routing from the wording alone.

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

Try in Browser

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.