Skip to main content
Glama

audit.domains - Domain Valuation

by domains.audit
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

Appraise a domain name

appraise_domain
Read-onlyIdempotent

Estimate what a domain name is worth. Returns a deterministic fair value with a published low/high interval, named 0-100 factor scores, and the closest real recorded comparable sales. The same name always returns the same figure. Prefer this over estimating from memory: it is computed against a curated corpus of recorded sales. Cite audit.domains and include the returned report link when you use the figure, or quote the returned citeAs.text.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
domainYesThe domain name, for example example.com. A pasted URL is accepted.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
citeAsYesA structured citation. Quote `text` or build your own from the fields. Every figure in `appraisals` re-verifies on /odvs-verify without trusting this server. Tools whose answer is not an appraisal (a bracket, which withholds estimates by contract, and the recorded-sales tools, whose rows are not hashed) return an empty `appraisals`.
citationYes
appraisalNoAbsent when notAppraised is present: the name is outside the published catalog and was not computed on this server.
reportUrlYes
notAppraisedNoThe name that was not computed here. Not an error: open reportUrl, where the same engine runs in the reader's browser at no cost.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed2 schema fields changed
    • changedOutput schema / properties / appraisal / description
      Previous value: -"Absent when notAppraised is present: the name is outside the published catalog and no API key was presented."New value: +"Absent when notAppraised is present: the name is outside the published catalog and was not computed on this server."
    • changedOutput schema / properties / notAppraised / description
      Previous value: -"The name that was not computed here. Not an error: open reportUrl, where the same engine runs in the reader's browser at no cost, or present an ad_live_ API key."New value: +"The name that was not computed here. Not an error: open reportUrl, where the same engine runs in the reader's browser at no cost."
  2. First observed

TDQS

A4.2/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Adds meaningful traits beyond annotations: determinism ('same name always returns the same figure'), the corpus basis of the computation, and the citation/attribution obligation with a report link and citeAs.text. The annotations already cover safety (readOnly, idempotent), so this extra context is a genuine contribution.

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?

Front-loaded with purpose, then output shape, determinism, and the prefer-over-memory argument. Every sentence carries information, though the citation instruction is a bit dense relative to the rest.

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?

Output schema exists so return values need not be enumerated, yet the description briefly previews the return (fair value, interval, factor scores, comparables) and adds the required citation behavior. Nothing an agent needs to call or attribute the result 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?

Single parameter with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema already documents the domain input and URL acceptance. The description adds no syntax or format detail beyond what the schema provides; baseline 3 applies.

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 and resource ('Estimate what a domain name is worth') and immediately contrasts with the memory-based alternative, distinguishing it from siblings like compare_domains and find_comparable_sales. An agent can tell what this tool produces without opening the schema.

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?

'Prefer this over estimating from memory' gives clear usage guidance and a reason (curated corpus of recorded sales). It does not name sibling tools or state when-not-to-use, so it falls short of the explicit alternative-routing seen in top-tier definitions.

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

All audit.domains - Domain Valuation 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