Unique Domains

Domain hacks

ud_list_domain_hacks

Read-onlyIdempotent

Domain hacks: names whose ending completes the word. Every input is optional; limit sets the page size.

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

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

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`pos`	No	Comma list of parts of speech: adjective, adjective satellite, adverb, conjunction, contraction, determiner, interjection, letter, noun, particle, pnoun, pnound, preposition, prepPhrase, pronoun, proverb, symbol, verb, unknown.
`limit`	No	Page size, 20 at most.
`shape`	No
`style`	No	Comma list of styles: modern, elegant, slab, handwritten, playful, futuristic.
`cursor`	No	The `meta.cursor` of the previous page.
`ending`	No	Comma list of endings without the dot.
`fields`	No	Comma-separated top-level keys to keep: id, name, ending, status, price, priceKind, renewal, ratingBand, format, shape, length, coverage, value, upsidePercent, liquidity, verdict.
`status`	No	Comma list of statuses: available, premium, resell, expiring, expired, taken, dormant, sold, unknown. Default: available, premium, resell.
`priceMax`	No	Highest price today, USD.
`lengthMax`	No	Longest word, in characters.
`lengthMin`	No	Shortest word, in characters.
`renewalMax`	No	Highest renewal, USD.
`expiresBefore`	No	Registry expiry on or before this day.

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description
`data`	No
`meta`	No	The day of the answer, and the page cursor of a list.
`links`	No	Links of the answer.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedNov 9, 2026

TDQS

C2.6/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds nothing beyond restating that filters are optional and that limit controls page size — both already visible in the schema — and says nothing about pagination via cursor, defaults, or result ordering.

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 defining concept is front-loaded. It is efficient, though its brevity comes at the cost of substance rather than being tight around rich content.

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

Completeness2/5

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

With 13 optional filter parameters and a fairly abstract concept (word-ending domains), the description should explain at least what a domain hack looks like, how pagination works, and how filters combine. None of that is present; only the concept definition and one redundant parameter note are given, leaving the agent to reconstruct intent from the schema alone.

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 92%, so the schema itself documents nearly every parameter, including enums, bounds, and defaults. The description only repeats the meaning of limit, which the schema already states, so the 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 defines the resource conceptually ("names whose ending completes the word"), which conveys what a domain hack is, but never states the verb — that this tool lists/searches domain-hack candidates. It also doesn't distinguish it from siblings like ud_list_domains or ud_get_word_endings, so an agent must infer that this is the filtered-list endpoint.

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?

"Every input is optional" is the only usage guidance, and it describes schema behavior rather than when to choose this tool. There is no mention of when to prefer it over ud_list_domains, ud_get_word_endings, or ud_resolve_word.

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

All Unique Domains 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.