bulk_tldCheck registration status of one keyword across many TLDs at once, returning which TLDs are taken, available, or listed for sale.
Related: tld_check, available.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| keywords | Yes | Comma-separated keywords to check (max 50) |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| data | No | ||
| error | No | ||
| total | No | Number of keywords checked | |
| success | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, which cover safety. The description adds value by specifying the exact categories returned (taken, available, listed for sale) and the batch-processing nature, going beyond the annotations without contradicting them.
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 concise and front-loaded: the first sentence delivers the core purpose and outcome, and the second sentence points to related tools. Every word is purposeful, with no redundancy or fluff.
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?
The tool is simple (one parameter) and has an output schema and rich annotations. The description covers the main behavior and outcome categories. However, the lack of explicit guidance on when to prefer this over related tools and the minor singular/plural wording issue prevent it from being fully complete.
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?
The schema fully documents the 'keywords' parameter (comma-separated, max 50), so the baseline is 3. The description adds the TLD-checking context but introduces a slight inconsistency by saying 'one keyword' while the schema permits multiple keywords. This does not clarify parameter usage beyond the schema.
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 action ('Check registration status'), the resource ('one keyword across many TLDs'), and the outcome ('returning which TLDs are taken, available, or listed for sale'). It also distinguishes itself from siblings by emphasizing 'at once' and listing related tools like tld_check and available.
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 implies bulk usage through 'across many TLDs at once' and references related tools, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool vs alternatives. There is no direct 'use tld_check for single TLD' guidance, so the usage context is only implied.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Many domain-search tools (active, aged, expired, deleted, market, nrds, nrds_live) have overlapping boundaries that depend on subtle lifecycle or listing distinctions, and pairs like bulk_tld/tld_check and nrds/nrds_live are easy to confuse. The detailed descriptions and related-tool hints help, but an agent still faces several nearly interchangeable choices.
All tool names follow a consistent lowercase_snake_case convention, with no mixing of camelCase or inconsistent verb styles. However, the names use a noun/adjective pattern rather than a clear verb_noun action pattern, and acronyms like nrds, epp_status, and tld_rank make some names less predictable.
32 tools is heavy for a domain toolkit, and several tools are close variants of the same search or check operation, such as active/aged/expired/deleted/market and nrds/nrds_live. The broad domain scope justifies some breadth, but the set would be much more focused with consolidation.
The toolset covers the core domain lifecycle well: availability, registration states, WHOIS, DNS, pricing, TLD statistics, safety, backlinks, typosquatting, and monitoring. The main gaps are that strategy can store data but has no retrieval or deletion action, and market pricing is limited to Sedo only.