Skip to main content
Glama

DomainKits

by io.github.ABTdomain

gTLD Registration Trends

tld_trends
Read-onlyIdempotent

Return registration trend data for a TLD over time, or compare multiple TLDs, in active-total or newly-registered mode.

Related: tld_rank, keywords_trends.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
tldNoSingle TLD for 'data' mode, gTLDs only (e.g., 'com', 'xyz'). Country-code TLDs are not covered and return an error.
daysNoTime horizon
tldsNoComma-separated TLDs for 'compare' mode (max 5, gTLDs only, e.g. 'xyz,online,shop,store'). Country-code TLDs such as io, ai, co are not covered by this dataset.
typeNo'newly' for daily new registrations, 'active' for total active domains
actionNo'data' for single TLD deep-dive, 'compare' for multi-TLD comparison

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
tldNoTLD name (data mode only)
dataNoIn 'data' mode: array of data points. In 'compare' mode: object keyed by TLD name, each value is an array of data points.
daysNo
typeNo'newly' or 'active'
errorNo
noticeNoCompare mode only: present when some requested TLDs had no data; explains which and why.
successYes
tlds_missingNoCompare mode only: requested TLDs that returned no trend data.

TDQS

A3.6/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint false, so the safe read-only behavior is covered. The description adds mode and comparison context but does not disclose additional behavioral traits such as data-source coverage, rate limits, or response characteristics beyond what the schema and output schema provide.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the core action and resource, and includes related tool names without unnecessary verbosity. Every sentence contributes useful context.

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 rich schema, full parameter coverage, annotations, and an output schema, the description is sufficiently complete for a read-only trend tool. It communicates the core modes and related tools, though it leaves sibling differentiation to the reader.

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 all five parameters are already documented in the input schema. The description mirrors the modes (active-total vs newly-registered, single vs compare) but does not add new semantic detail beyond the schema.

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

Purpose4/5

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

The description clearly states the tool returns registration trend data for a TLD over time or multiple TLDs in active/newly-registered modes. It is specific about verb and resource, but it does not explicitly differentiate itself from the related sibling tools tld_rank and keywords_trends beyond 'Related'.

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?

Usage is implied by the description and elaborated by the schema's mode descriptions, but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance or direct comparison to tld_rank or keywords_trends. The gTLD-only exclusion is present only in the parameter schema, not in the description itself.

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