Skip to main content
Glama

zerm

by dev.zerm

Check Name Availability

name_check
Read-only

Live availability check for a name across domain TLDs (registry RDAP), npm, PyPI, and GitHub usernames. Real registry lookups at call time - not guesses. Each result is registered, unregistered, unknown or invalid and names the source that decided it; "unknown" means no authoritative registry answered, so treat it as "cannot tell" and never as free. Some ccTLDs (.co among them) publish no RDAP and always come back unknown. Note: "unregistered" domains can still be registry-reserved or premium-priced; only a registrar checkout is final. Need another registry or platform checked? Describe it via the request_tool tool.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
nameYesThe name to check. A bare name is best, but "stripe.com" (checks the .com) and "Acme Global Ltd" (slugified to acme-global-ltd) are accepted; the normalized name is echoed back.
tldsNoTLDs for the domain check. Default: ["com","dev","io","net"].
targetsNoWhich registries to check. Default: all.

TDQS

A4.7/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Beyond annotations, the description explains critical result semantics: 'unknown' means no authoritative registry answered and must not be treated as free, some ccTLDs like .co are always unknown, and 'unregistered' does not mean final because of reserved/premium names. This is rich behavioral context.

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?

The description is longer than two sentences but every sentence adds necessary caveats or context for a multi-target tool. It is dense and front-loaded with the core purpose.

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?

Given three targets and no output schema, the description fully covers result categories, source attribution, defaults, edge cases (ccTLDs), and the follow-up action (request_tool). No gaps remain for accurate invocation.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters5/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The input schema already documents each parameter, but the description adds value with normative examples (e.g., 'stripe.com' or 'Acme Global Ltd'), the normalized name echo, and defaults for tlds and targets.

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 action and scope: 'Live availability check for a name across domain TLDs (registry RDAP), npm, PyPI, and GitHub usernames.' This identifies the verb, resource, and distinctions from siblings like dns_query or email_check.

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?

It clearly states it performs real registry lookups at call time and offers an explicit alternative (request_tool) for additional registries. It lacks explicit 'do not use when' guidance versus siblings like dns_query, but the use case is clear.

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

All zerm toolsInspect
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 has a unique, clearly defined purpose (counters, cron, DNS, email, fixtures, webhooks, KV, locks, name checks, regex, timers, timezone, URL checks). There is no functional overlap; even closely related tools like timer_schedule and cron_next are clearly separated by descriptions.

Naming Consistency4/5

The dominant naming pattern is <resource>_<action> (e.g., inbox_create, kv_get, lock_acquire, tz_convert). A few tools deviate, such as counter_next and cron_next (resource_qualifier), fixture_rows (resource_noun), and request_tool (verb_noun), but these are minor and do not obscure the overall pattern.

Tool Count3/5

At 24 tools, the server exceeds the typical 3-15 range, leaning heavy. The tools cover many independent utility categories, each with a minimal set of operations, but the overall count feels slightly excessive for a single server, though it is justified by the broad scope.

Completeness4/5

The server provides complete lifecycles for its functional areas: KV (set/get/list/delete), inbox (create/poll/delete), locks (acquire/release), timers (schedule/status/cancel/verify). Each utility is self-contained, and the request_tool offers a path for extending the surface. No obvious gaps or dead ends within the intended domain.

Resources