domain_infoWHOIS/RDAP dossier for a domain: registrar, creation/expiry, status, nameservers. ~$0.005.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| domain | Yes | Domain name, e.g. example.com |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | 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?
Annotations declare readOnlyHint=false, but the description describes an inherently read-only WHOIS/RDAP query, creating an annotation contradiction. The description adds only cost info, omitting caveats like data redaction or availability issues.
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 one sentence, front-loads the core purpose, lists concrete data points, and includes the cost. Every word earns its place; no redundancy.
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?
For a simple one-parameter tool with an output schema, the description covers the essential behavior and cost. However, the readOnly mismatch and lack of context about WHOIS availability/privacy redactions keep 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?
Schema has 100% coverage of the single 'domain' parameter with an example, so the description adds no additional parameter meaning. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the structured data already fully documents the parameter.
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 it provides a WHOIS/RDAP dossier with specific fields (registrar, creation/expiry, status, nameservers), which distinguishes it from siblings like web_search or scrape_page. However, it lacks an explicit verb like 'retrieve' or 'lookup', so it's clear but not maximally specific.
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 usage for domain registration lookups and mentions the cost, giving some context, but does not explicitly state when to use this versus alternatives, nor does it provide exclusions or prerequisites.
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.
Four image generation tools, three video tools, and five 'ask' tools create significant overlap. Although descriptions specify the model, an agent must carefully compare prices and capabilities to choose correctly, making misselection likely.
All tool names use snake_case, but patterns are mixed: some start with verbs (remove_bg, scrape_page), some with nouns (crypto_prices, market_snapshot), and many use ai_/ask_ prefixes. Model suffixes like flux, gpt, pro, kling are descriptive but not systematically applied.
24 tools is heavy, inflated by near-duplicate variants for image, video, and LLM queries. While the broad scope justifies a large count, the redundant tools could have been consolidated.
The toolset covers a wide range of media and data tasks: image, video, music, voice, vision, LLM, web, crypto, domain, and endpoint discovery. Notable gaps like speech-to-text or image editing exist, but the surface is fairly complete for a general-purpose media toolkit.