Skip to main content
Glama

DomainKits

by io.github.ABTdomain

Premium Domain Changes Monitor (7d)

domain_changes
Read-onlyIdempotent

List registration and status changes to premium .com domains (short 1-4 letter and high-value single-word names) over a rolling 7-day window, filtered by change reason and length.

Related: whois, ns_reverse.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
tldNoTLD filter (e.g., 'com')
pageNoPage number for pagination
sortNoSort order
lengthNoPrefix length filter (characters before TLD)
reasonNoFilter by change type
keywordNoSearch by domain or keyword within the monitored pool
has_digitNofalse = letters only (default), true = contains digits, all = digits only

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
dataNo
errorNoError message when success is false
totalNoNumber of results on this page
successYes

TDQS

A4.1/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds the rolling 7-day window and the filtering behavior (by reason and length), which is useful context beyond the annotations. It does not contradict 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?

The description is a single, well-structured sentence that front-loads the main purpose with a clear verb ('List') and resource ('registration and status changes'). The 'Related' line adds useful pointers without being verbose, though it could be seen as slightly redundant.

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?

Given the tool has an output schema and rich annotations, the description is sufficiently complete. It covers the scope (premium .com, 7-day rolling window) and key filters, but does not detail return value structure or pagination, though output schema likely covers that. A more explicit mention of 'premium' definition could help but is minor.

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%, with all 7 parameters described in detail. The description adds that filters are for 'premium' domains and mentions 'change reason and length', which supplements the schema. However, it does not explain parameter interactions or defaults beyond schema, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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

Purpose5/5

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

The description clearly states the tool lists registration and status changes to premium .com domains over a rolling 7-day window, with specific filters. It distinguishes itself from siblings by mentioning 'premium' and the 7-day window, setting it apart from broader tools like 'deleted' or 'expired'.

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?

The description implies a monitoring use case (rolling 7-day window) and lists related tools (whois, ns_reverse) as alternatives, but does not explicitly state when not to use this tool. It's clear it's for recent changes, but could be more explicit about why to choose it over similar tools.

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

All DomainKits toolsInspect
Try in Browser
RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

A3.5/5.0
Disambiguation3/5

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.

Naming Consistency4/5

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.

Tool Count2/5

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.

Completeness4/5

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.

Resources