Search for domain and business name suggestions. Costs 1 credit.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| tlds | No | Preferred TLDs | |
| count | No | Number of suggestions (1-20, default 10) | |
| query | Yes | Search query describing the desired name | |
| style | No | ||
| language | No | ||
| maxLength | No | Max character length | |
| excludeWords | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It notes the credit cost but does not disclose whether the operation is read-only, destructive, or has side effects. No rate limits, privacy impacts, or authentication needs are mentioned, leaving significant gaps.
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?
The description is a single sentence, which makes it concise, but it is too short to be fully informative. It includes the purpose and cost, which are essential, but omits critical details like parameter usage and return values. It is appropriately front-loaded but lacks completeness.
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?
Given the tool has 7 parameters, no output schema, and moderate complexity, the description is severely incomplete. It does not describe return values, required permissions, error conditions, or how the credit cost applies. An agent would have insufficient context to use this tool correctly without additional information.
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?
Schema description coverage is 57%, meaning 3 parameters lack descriptions. The tool description adds no parameter-specific information, so it fails to compensate for the missing schema details. The description does not explain how parameters like 'style' or 'language' affect results beyond what the schema provides.
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?
The description clearly states the tool searches for domain and business name suggestions, which distinguishes it from sibling tools like check_domain_availability (which checks availability) and get_credits_balance (which queries credits). The verb 'search' and resource 'name suggestions' are specific and appropriate.
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?
The description only mentions a cost of 1 credit, hinting at a prerequisite, but provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives or any exclusions. No explicit context for usage scenarios or comparison with sibling tools is given.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.