check_nameName 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.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
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.