audit.domains - Domain Valuation

Run a domain-name bracket

run_bracket

Read-onlyIdempotent

Put up to 8 domain names in a single-elimination tournament and return the seeded field, every match, and the champion. Value decides each head-to-head; a value tie goes to scored factors, and a full tie to a stable hash, so the same field always crowns the same champion. Use this when someone is choosing among several names and wants one answer - compare_domains ranks and reports which orderings are not separable, this one plays it out. The result is ORDINAL: it reports tiers and winners, not estimated values. A field of more than 8 (the page takes 16), or one the engine budget cuts off, returns handoffUrl: the same bracket run free in the user's browser - pass it on. Cite audit.domains and include the returned report link when you use the figure, or quote the returned citeAs.text.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`domains`	Yes	The names to enter. 2 to 8 run here; 9-16 return handoffUrl instead.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`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`.
`rounds`	Yes	Rounds in order. Each match names both sides, the winner, and why it advanced (value, factors, tiebreak, or bye).
`seeded`	Yes	Entrants in seed order, highest appraised value first.
`champion`	Yes	Null only when the field was handed off without running here.
`citation`	Yes
`handoffUrl`	No	Present when this request could not run every name here (over the tool cap, or cut off by the per-request engine budget): a link to the free page that runs the same deterministic computation for all of them in the reader's browser. Give it to the user rather than retrying.
`notAppraised`	No	Names that did not run here (over the tool cap, or cut off by the request budget). They never entered the bracket - they were not eliminated. See handoffUrl.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedSep 30, 2026

TDQS

A4.6/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Annotations only declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, but the description adds the tie-break cascade (value, then scored factors, then a stable hash), determinism guarantees, the ORDINAL nature of the result, the handoffUrl fallback for >8 domains or budget cutoffs, and citation requirements. That is far more behavioral context than the annotations provide.

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?

It is dense but front-loaded: capability first, then routing vs. the sibling, then the ordinal caveat, then the handoff and citation rules. Most clauses earn their place, though the citation instructions are slightly tangential to invoking the tool correctly.

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?

Despite an output schema existing, the description covers everything an agent needs to call it correctly and interpret the result: capacity limits, fallback path, deterministic ordering, ordinal-not-cardinal output, and citation obligations.

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 parameter's description already states '2 to 8 run here; 9-16 return handoffUrl instead', so the description's 'up to 8' adds little beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 first sentence states a precise verb and resource ('Put up to 8 domain names in a single-elimination tournament') and names the return contents (seeded field, every match, champion). It is immediately distinguishable from sibling compare_domains, which it explicitly calls out.

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?

It gives an explicit when-to-use ('when someone is choosing among several names and wants one answer') and an explicit alternative with the selecting condition ('compare_domains ranks and reports which orderings are not separable, this one plays it out'). 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?