Skip to main content
Glama

DomainKits

by io.github.ABTdomain

User Preferences & Memory

preferences
Idempotent

Manage user preferences and memory settings. Data is encrypted at rest (AES-256-GCM) in isolated per-user directories.

Actions:

  • get: report whether memory is enabled and return saved preferences.

  • set: save preferences; memory_enabled must be true before any preferences, monitors, or strategies can be stored, and requires explicit user consent.

  • delete: permanently erase all stored user data (GDPR Article 17).

Related: monitor, strategy.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
styleNo'short', 'brandable', 'keyword' (set only)
actionNo'get', 'set', or 'delete'. Defaults to 'get' if not specified.
budgetNo'low', 'medium', 'high' (set only)
industryNoIndustry type (set only)
memory_enabledNo'true' to enable memory, 'false' to disable. Must be enabled before using monitors or strategies. (set only)
preferred_tldsNoComma-separated TLDs, e.g. 'com,net,io' (set only)
exclude_hyphensNo'true' or 'false' (set only)
exclude_numbersNo'true' or 'false' (set only)

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
dataNoSaved preference data (get only, when memory is enabled)
messageNoHuman-readable result message
successYesWhether the request was successful
memory_enabledNoWhether memory is enabled for this user
monitors_countNoNumber of active monitors (get only)
monitors_summaryNoMonitor overview (get only, when monitors_count > 0)
strategies_countNoNumber of active strategies (get only)

TDQS

B3.4/5.0
Behavior1/5

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

Annotation Contradiction: The description states 'delete: permanently erase all stored user data (GDPR Article 17)', indicating destructive behavior, while annotations declare destructiveHint: false. This is a direct contradiction, forcing a score of 1 despite otherwise valuable transparency about encryption and consent requirements.

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

Conciseness5/5

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

The description is concise and well-structured: a one-line purpose summary, a brief security note, and a bulleted list of actions. Every sentence serves a clear function, and the action list is front-loaded and easy to scan.

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?

The description provides rich context: encryption, per-user isolation, action semantics, consent requirements, and GDPR erasure. It also references related tools and the output schema exists. However, the contradiction with annotations on destructiveness undermines reliability, and usage differentiation could be stronger.

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 covers 100% of parameters with descriptions, so baseline is 3. The description adds minimal extra parameter semantics beyond schema, mostly reiterating the memory_enabled prerequisite also noted in the schema. No new behavioral details for individual parameters are provided.

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 manages user preferences and memory settings, then enumerates three specific actions (get, set, delete) with distinct behaviors. It also names related tools (monitor, strategy), which helps distinguish scope.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

The description implies usage context by explaining actions and prerequisites (e.g., memory_enabled must be true, explicit consent for set), but it does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over siblings like monitor or strategy, nor does it provide exclusion criteria.

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