audit.domains - Domain Valuation

List a domain portfolio by expiry date

check_portfolio_renewals

Read-onlyIdempotent

Look up the registry expiry date and registrar of up to 25 domain names a person owns and list them soonest first, flagging names that expire within 60 days (or a chosen window), have passed their expiry date, or are no longer registered. Use it when someone asks which domains to renew or what is expiring; use check_domain_availability instead for names they do not own yet, and appraise_domain to decide whether a name is worth renewing. Expiry comes from each registry's RDAP record and a registrar renewal can take a day to show. Read-only, free, no key; one or two DNS and RDAP requests per uncached name, runs no valuation.

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`domains`	Yes	The portfolio's domain names, 1 to 25, such as ["example.com", "example.io"].
`withinDays`	No	Flag names expiring within this many days, 1 to 365. Defaults to 60.

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description
`limit`	No	Present with pending: code lookup_limit, retryable, retryAfterSeconds, and retry ({tool, arguments}: send it unchanged after that wait to continue exactly where this call stopped). Where a key lifts the limit, upgrade says how.
`budget`	No	This request's uncached-lookup budget: lane (free or keyed), used, limit, remaining, and keyRejected when a key was sent and refused. Cached names cost nothing.
`citeAs`	Yes	A 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`. A stored interval also has no ODVS record: its artifact digest is provenance, not a standalone proof of these projected fields.
`invalid`	No
`pending`	No	Names not checked because the lookup limit was reached. limit.retry is the call that checks them.
`sellUrl`	No	Present when names are due: where to list a name for sale here instead of letting it lapse.
`citation`	Yes
`dueCount`	Yes
`renewals`	Yes
`withinDays`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed1 schema field changedOct 15, 2026

changedOutput schema / properties / citeAs / description

Previous value: -"A 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`."New value: +"A 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`. A stored interval also has no ODVS record: its artifact digest is provenance, not a standalone proof of these projected fields."

Changed2 schema fields changedOct 8, 2026

addedOutput schema / properties / renewals / items / properties / next

Added value: +{
+  "description": "The one step that moves this name forward: {tool, arguments} to call next on this server, or {url} to open; why says what it gets. Null when nothing here does (for a free name, registering it at a registrar).",
+  "type": [
+    "object",
+    "null"
+  ]
+}

changedOutput schema / properties / renewals / items / required

Previous value: -[
-  "domain",
-  "status",
-  "flag",
-  "reportUrl"
-]New value: +[
+  "domain",
+  "status",
+  "flag",
+  "reportUrl",
+  "next"
+]

AddedOct 8, 2026

TDQS

A4.8/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Beyond the annotations (readOnly, idempotent, openWorld, non-destructive), it discloses cost and access ('free, no key'), the per-name request load ('one or two DNS and RDAP requests per uncached name'), the data source and freshness caveat ('Expiry comes from each registry's RDAP record and a registrar renewal can take a day to show'), and the scope exclusion ('runs no valuation'). That is substantial behavioral context the structured fields do not carry.

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 the core action and limit, followed by usage routing and operational caveats; every sentence carries information an agent would otherwise have to guess. It is dense and slightly run-on, but there is no filler to cut.

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?

With an output schema present, the description need not explain return shape, and it covers everything else: input limits, flagging rules, freshness caveats, cost, and alternative routing. An agent has all it needs to select and call this correctly.

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

Parameters4/5

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

Schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds semantics the schema does not: the default window (60 days) is restated with the flag categories it drives (expiring soon, already expired, no longer registered), and the 'up to 25' ceiling is tied to portfolio scale. It stops short of describing the domains input format beyond what the schema already says.

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 concrete verb and resource ('Look up the registry expiry date and registrar of up to 25 domain names ... and list them soonest first') plus the flagging behavior, which is specific enough to distinguish it from every sibling. An agent can tell this is a portfolio-expiry listing tool 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 Guidelines5/5

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

Explicitly states the trigger ('when someone asks which domains to renew or what is expiring') and names two alternatives with the conditions that select them: check_domain_availability for names not yet owned, appraise_domain for renewal-worthiness decisions. Nothing is left to inference.

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 tools Inspect

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

Need Help?