audit.domains - Domain Valuation

Inspect a domain before buying it

inspect_domain

Read-onlyIdempotent

Gather the public record of one domain name before buying, registering or building on it: registration date, expiry and registrar, registry status (including redemption or pending delete, when a name is about to drop), whether it serves a website or receives email, Internet Archive history, HTTPS certificate history, a Wikipedia article sharing its word (a trademark flag), and the published catalog figure when there is one, with plain signals such as expires in 30 days or held but not in use. Use check_domain_availability instead to screen many names, appraise_domain for a value, and read_for_sale_dns for whether the owner lists it for sale. A source that does not answer is reported as unknown, never as absent. Read-only, free, no key; one request to the site's cached evidence lookup, runs no valuation.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`domain`	Yes	The one domain name to inspect, such as example.com. A pasted URL is accepted.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`next`	No	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).
`inUse`	No
`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.
`domain`	Yes
`catalog`	No
`forSale`	No	Present when the owner sells it: askingPrice (indicative), buyUrl when checkout is live here, listedHere.
`history`	No
`signals`	No
`citation`	Yes
`fetchedAt`	No
`reportUrl`	Yes
`retryable`	No
`wikipedia`	No
`unavailable`	No
`certificates`	No
`registration`	No
`registryStatuses`	No

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."

Changed1 schema field changedOct 8, 2026

addedOutput schema / 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"
+  ]
+}

AddedOct 8, 2026

TDQS

A4.6/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Annotation already covers read-only/free/idempotent, yet the description adds real behavioral context: unknown-source handling ('reported as unknown, never as absent'), one request to a cached evidence lookup, no valuation performed, and no key required. That is exactly the extra layer annotations cannot express.

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?

Purpose is front-loaded and the alternative-routing sentence comes before the behavioral caveat, which is good ordering. The opening sentence is a long enumerated run-on that would read better as a list, but every clause carries information an agent needs.

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?

An output schema exists so return values need no explanation. With the data inventory, sibling routing, cost/rate profile, and failure-mode semantics all present, nothing an agent needs to call this correctly 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?

Schema coverage is 100% and the single 'domain' parameter already documents format and URL-paste acceptance, so the schema carries the burden. The description only alludes to 'one domain name' and adds no format, normalization, or edge-case detail beyond it; 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 (gather the public record) and resource (one domain name) and enumerates exactly what comes back: registration/expiry/registrar, registry status, website/email presence, archive history, cert history, Wikipedia/trademark flag, catalog figure. It explicitly separates itself from four named siblings, so an agent can pick it without opening any 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?

Gives explicit routing: use check_domain_availability to screen many names, appraise_domain for value, read_for_sale_dns for sale status, with the implicit condition (single-domain deep inspection) stated in the opening clause. 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?