Unique Domains

2026 new gTLD round as ICANN publishes it

ud_list_tld_applications

Read-onlyIdempotent

The 2026 new gTLD round as ICANN publishes it, A to Z, with two simple bands. 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_tld_applications"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`q`	No	The string, its U-label, the applicant, the contention set or the country contains this text.
`pop`	No	Word popularity band.
`type`	No	The boards' reading of ICANN's type.
`word`	No	The string is a word of the catalog's corpus.
`limit`	No	Page size, 20 at most.
`sales`	No	Comparable sales band.
`cursor`	No	The `meta.cursor` of the previous page.
`fields`	No	Comma-separated top-level keys to keep: applicationId, string, uLabel, applicant, applicantCountryCode, type, status, contentionSet, announcedOn, wordPopularityBand, comparableSalesBand, typeKey, statusKey, setSize, applicantCount, inWordCorpus.
`status`	No	The boards' reading of ICANN's status.
`contention`	No	In a contention set, or not.

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

C2.3/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, and closed-world behavior, so the description need only add context beyond that. It adds almost nothing: 'A to Z' and 'two simple bands' are unexplained, pagination via the cursor parameter is not mentioned, and there is no detail on ordering or filtering behavior.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness3/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is short, but the phrasing 'A to Z, with two simple bands' is cryptic and wastes the limited space instead of front-loading what the tool lists or how it behaves. It is not verbose, but it is not efficiently structured for an agent's needs.

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?

Given ten optional parameters, five enums, an output schema, and many similar sibling tools, the description is far too thin. It omits what the listing contains, how filters combine, how pagination works, and how it differs from adjacent tools such as ud_list_tld_application_changes. The output schema covers return values, but the description still leaves major usage gaps.

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 the schema fully documents all ten parameters, including enums and the fields projection. The description only notes that all inputs are optional and that limit sets page size, which is already evident from the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema carries the semantic load.

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

Purpose2/5

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

The description says 'The 2026 new gTLD round as ICANN publishes it, A to Z, with two simple bands,' which is a cryptic restatement of the title rather than a clear action. It never states that the tool lists or retrieves TLD applications, nor does it distinguish the operation from siblings like ud_list_tld_application_changes or ud_get_tld_application_string. Only the tool name hints at listing.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as ud_get_tld_application_string for a single string or ud_list_tld_application_changes for change history. The only procedural note is that every input is optional and limit sets page size, which does not help an agent choose between sibling tools.

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.