check_nameCheck whether one or more candidate names are free to use as a brand — across domains and the GitHub / npm / PyPI namespaces — in a single call.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| tlds | No | ||
| names | Yes | ||
| surfaces | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| results | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already indicate safe, idempotent, read-only behavior. The description adds that it checks across domains (tlds) and multiple namespaces (surfaces) in 'a single call', providing useful operational context beyond the annotations.
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?
One sentence, 24 words, front-loaded with the action. Every word adds value with no redundancy or filler.
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?
Given the presence of an output schema and annotations, the description is complete enough for an agent to understand the tool's purpose and basic behavior. It covers the main parameters and scope, though it could benefit from mentioning output format summary or order of checks.
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?
With 0% schema description coverage, the description must add meaning. It mentions 'domains' (mapping to tlds) and 'GitHub / npm / PyPI' (mapping to surfaces), and names to check. However, it does not explicitly describe each parameter or their constraints, only implying their roles.
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 verb 'Check' and the resource 'brand-name availability across domains and namespaces'. It distinguishes itself from the sibling 'generate_names' by focusing on checking availability rather than generating names.
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 use when you need to check names for brand availability, but does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives beyond the sibling name. No when/when-not or context for exclusion.
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.