Watch domains and forecast when they drop; check a name's domain, handles, and trademark.
Scored across 5 tools
Each tool has a clearly distinct purpose: checking domain status, brand name safety, listing watches, adding to watchlist, and removing from watchlist. No overlap or ambiguity.
All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern (e.g., check_domains, list_watches, watch_domains), making them predictable and easy for an agent to understand.
With 5 tools, the server is well-scoped for domain monitoring and watchlist management. Each tool serves a necessary function without excess or deficiency.
The tool set covers the core lifecycle: checking domains, performing a safety check, adding/removing watches, and listing the watchlist. No obvious gaps for its intended domain monitoring purpose.
Check the registration status of one or more domains — whether each is taken, expiring, in redemption, in pendingDelete, or available to register. Returns status, expiry, registrar, name servers, EPP codes, and a buyer-focused drop forecast (predicted release window and confidence) for names in their lapse cycle. No authentication required. Up to 20 domains per call.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| domains | Yes | Domain names to check, e.g. ["example.com", "acme.io"] |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true; description adds value by specifying the read operation nature, listing returned data fields, constraints (up to 20 domains), and lack of authentication requirements.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two succinct sentences: first states the core action, second details returns and constraints. No unnecessary words or repetition.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple, single-parameter tool with no output schema and clear annotations, the description covers all necessary aspects: operation, input constraints, output fields, and usage context.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. Description mentions the limit of 20 domains, but that is already in the schema via maxItems, adding little extra meaning.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Clearly states verb 'check' and resource 'registration status of domains', listing specific statuses and return fields. Distinguishes from sibling tools like check_name only implicitly by mentioning multiple domains, but lacks explicit differentiation.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Provides context (e.g., no authentication required) but no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like check_name or when not to use it.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Name Safety Check for a brand name: domain availability across .com/.io/.ai/.app/.dev/.co, social-handle availability (best effort), and a US trademark knockout search of public USPTO records. Returns structured results. This is a knockout search, not legal advice. No authentication required.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | Yes | A brand name to check, e.g. "acme" |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true; description adds it's a knockout search and not legal advice. No extra disclosure of rate limits or side effects.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Three concise sentences, front-loaded with purpose, no redundant information.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Simple tool with one param, no output schema; description fully covers scope, caveats, and behavior.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Only one parameter 'name' with 100% schema coverage; description adds a concrete example 'acme', which clarifies expected format beyond the schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Clearly states it checks domain availability, social handles, and trademark knockout for a brand name. Distinguishes from sibling check_domains by covering multiple vectors.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Implicitly guides when to use (for a name safety check) vs sibling check_domains, includes caveats like not legal advice and no auth required. Lacks explicit when-not or alternatives.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
List every domain on your snooze watchlist with its current status and drop forecast — so an agent can see what it is already tracking. Requires signing in to your snooze account.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No parameters | |||
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description adds the authentication requirement. It also hints at the return content (status and drop forecast). No additional behavioral details are needed beyond this.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two sentences, no wasted words. The first sentence conveys purpose and outcome; the second adds a crucial prerequisite. Front-loaded and efficient.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Despite no parameters or output schema, the description fully conveys what the tool does, what it returns (status and drop forecast), and the authentication requirement. No significant omissions.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
With 0 parameters and 100% schema coverage, the baseline is 4. The description does not need to add parameter info, and it does not attempt to.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb ('List') and resource ('every domain on your snooze watchlist'), clearly stating the tool's function. It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'watch_domains' and 'unwatch_domains' by being the only listing tool.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides context ('so an agent can see what it is already tracking') and a prerequisite ('requires signing in'), implying when to use. However, it does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools like 'check_domains'.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Remove one or more domains from your snooze watchlist. Requires signing in to your snooze account.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| domains | Yes | Domain names to stop watching |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already indicate idempotent and destructive behavior; description adds the key requirement of authentication, which is not in annotations.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two sentences efficiently cover purpose and a critical requirement, with no extraneous information.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the simple single-parameter tool and no output schema, the description covers the core action and a key prerequisite; could briefly mention if domains must be currently watched.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100%, and the description restates the parameter's purpose ('Domain names to stop watching') without adding significant new meaning beyond the schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses specific verb 'remove' and resource 'domains from your snooze watchlist', clearly distinguishing it from sibling 'watch_domains' (add) and others.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Provides a clear prerequisite ('requires signing in') and implies use case (removing watched domains) though no explicit exclusion of alternatives.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one or more domains to your snooze watchlist. Each is monitored continuously and you get an email when its status changes or it nears a drop. Requires signing in to your snooze account. Up to 25 domains per call (100 total).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| domains | Yes | Domain names to watch, e.g. ["example.com", "acme.io"] |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations indicate idempotent (safe to retry) and non-destructive. The description adds that domains are monitored continuously and trigger email alerts, providing complete behavioral context beyond annotations.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Three sentences: action, monitoring behavior, prerequisites/limits. No extraneous information; front-loaded and efficient.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description covers purpose, behavior, constraints, and prerequisites completely.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100% with a clear description and example. The tool description adds the constraint of 100 total watched domains, which is not in the schema, enhancing parameter understanding.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Add one or more domains to your snooze watchlist') and the resource (domains). It distinguishes from sibling tools like check_domains and unwatch_domains by specifying monitoring and email alerts.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides clear constraints ('Requires signing in', 'Up to 25 domains per call (100 total)') but does not explicitly contrast with alternatives. However, the context is adequate for selecting the tool.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Recent tool additions, removals, and schema changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
check_domaincheck_domainscheck_namelist_watchesunwatch_domainswatch_domainwatch_domainscheck_domainwatch_domainMonitor taken usernames and get alerted when they drop, plus handle, domain, and trademark checks.
Search newly registered, expired, aged, active, deleted and for-sale domains, plus WHOIS and DNS.
Domain availability over RDAP, watchlists with daily checks, change history and email alerts.
Screen expired domains: availability, drop stage, history, brandability, trademark risk.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
