Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In

Unique Domains

by domains.unique
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

A registrar's list prices, alphabetical by ending

ud_list_registrar_prices
Read-onlyIdempotent

A registrar's list prices, alphabetical by ending. Use it when someone asks what one registrar charges for its endings, first year and renewal. Pass registrar (such as namecheap); the other inputs are optional.

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": {
      "registrar": "<registrar>"
    },
    "name": "ud_list_registrar_prices"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
fieldsNoComma-separated top-level keys to keep: extension, purchasePrice, renewalPrice, transferPrice, isPromo, currency, delisted.
registrarYesA registrar catalog slug of the nine, exactly (`name.com`, no `name-com` alias).

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

A3.6/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, non-destructive, and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds one genuine behavioral trait — results are 'alphabetical by ending' — plus the single-registrar scoping, but says nothing about pacing, catalog freshness, or coverage limits. Useful but thin beyond the annotations.

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, front-loaded with scope followed by the usage trigger, with no filler. The first sentence duplicates the tool title nearly verbatim, so it spends a little space repeating rather than adding, but overall it is tight.

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

Completeness4/5

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

With an output schema present and full parameter documentation, the description only needs to establish intent and scope, which it does: single registrar, first-year and renewal prices, alphabetical ordering. It does not clarify how this differs from the several price-change/trap sibling tools, the one remaining gap.

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 parameters (including the nine-value registrar enum and the `fields` projection list) are already fully documented. The description only restates that `registrar` is passed and that other inputs are optional, adding no syntax or meaning beyond the schema; baseline 3 applies.

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

Purpose4/5

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

The description names a concrete resource and scope: 'list prices' for a single registrar's endings, covering first year and renewal. It is clear what the tool returns, but it never names or contrasts a sibling (e.g. ud_list_price_changes or ud_list_price_traps), so the agent must infer which price tool to pick from names alone.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

'Use it when someone asks what one registrar charges for its endings, first year and renewal' gives explicit trigger conditions, and the scope is narrowed to a single registrar. There is no when-not guidance or named alternative for cross-registrar comparisons, which keeps it below 5.

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