Check whether a specific internet domain name is available for registration. Returns availability status, price, and alternatives if taken. WHEN TO USE: user asks 'is X.com available?' or 'can I register Y.io?'. ALWAYS call this before register_new_domain.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| domain | Yes | Complete domain name with TLD, e.g. 'sweetcrumbs.com' |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. It states the tool returns availability status, price, and alternatives if taken, and implies a read-only check by being a precursor to registration. It does not explicitly state non-mutation or limitations, but the description is clear enough for a simple lookup tool.
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 concise and well-structured: a purpose statement, a returns line, and an explicit WHEN TO USE section. Every sentence 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?
For a simple single-parameter tool with no output schema or annotations, the description covers the core function, return content, and usage context. It also implicitly differentiates from sibling tools like suggest_available_domains and register_new_domain, making it sufficiently complete for an agent to decide when to invoke it.
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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already defines the only parameter 'domain' with an example. The description adds minimal extra semantic value, only repeating the notion of checking a specific domain name and providing examples in usage guidance. Baseline of 3 is appropriate.
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 tool's function: checking if a specific internet domain name is available for registration. It also differentiates from siblings like register_new_domain and suggest_available_domains by specifying that it returns availability status, price, and alternatives if taken.
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?
Provides explicit WHEN TO USE guidance with concrete examples ('user asks 'is X.com available?''), and directly prescribes that this tool should ALWAYS be called before register_new_domain. This clearly communicates the intended use case and relationship to sibling tools.
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.
Each tool targets a distinct domain management action: availability checking, registration, suggestions, transfer, DNS config, email config, and status lookup. There is no meaningful overlap, even between check_domain_availability and suggest_available_domains, as the latter focuses on generating alternatives.
All tools follow a consistent verb_noun naming pattern (check_, configure_, get_, register_, suggest_, transfer_). The two configure_ tools are clearly grouped by purpose and the rest use specific verbs, making the pattern predictable and readable.
With 7 tools, the server is well-scoped for a domain management service. Each tool covers a distinct phase of the domain lifecycle without being either too sparse or overly granular.
The toolset covers the main domain lifecycle: finding, registering, transferring, configuring DNS/email, and monitoring status. Minor gaps exist, such as missing explicit renewal or deletion tools, but agents can work around these for typical scenarios.