Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In

Unique Domains

by domains.unique
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

Similar-sales aggregate of one name and the endings its word sold on

ud_get_name_comps
Read-onlyIdempotent

The similar-sales aggregate of one name and the endings its word sold on. Pass name (such as get.plumbing).

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "name": "<name>"
    },
    "name": "ud_get_name_comps"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
nameYesA full domain name on an ending the catalog holds, lowercased, IDN as punycode. A bare word, a subdomain, an e-mail address or an unknown ending answers 400 `validation_failed` with `reason` and `suggestion`.
fieldsNoComma-separated top-level keys to keep: tier, count, medianUsd, endingsSoldOn.

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
dataNo
metaNoThe day of the answer, and the page cursor of a list.
linksNoLinks of the answer.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observed

TDQS

C2.9/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered structurally. The description contributes the notion that results are an aggregate over comparable sales rather than raw records, but adds nothing on scoping, freshness, or result size, and no annotation is contradicted.

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?

Two short sentences with no filler, and the purpose statement is front-loaded ahead of the parameter hint. The first sentence largely restates the title, which is the only real redundancy.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness3/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

With an output schema present and 100% schema coverage, the description need not explain returns or parameters. However, for an aggregate/lookup tool sitting among many similar get_* siblings, the missing piece is selection guidance and a hint at what the aggregate covers, which is left unaddressed.

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 description coverage is 100%, so both `name` and `fields` are already documented in detail, including the 400 validation_failed behavior. The description's only addition is a concrete example value (get.plumbing), which the schema does not supply but is marginal; baseline 3 applies.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose3/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description identifies the resource as a 'similar-sales aggregate of one name and the endings its word sold on', which is more specific than the name alone, but the phrasing is noun-heavy and oblique ('endings its word sold on') rather than a clean verb+resource statement. It never contrasts itself with nearby siblings such as ud_get_word_endings or ud_get_name, so an agent must infer the distinction from the label.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines2/5

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

The only guidance is 'Pass `name` (such as get.plumbing)', which is a parameter hint rather than a when-to-use rule. There is no statement of when this tool is preferable to ud_get_word_endings or ud_get_name, and no prerequisites or exclusions are given.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

All Unique Domains toolsInspect
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