ICANN registrar accreditation status

List ICANN enforcement notices

list_enforcement_actions

Read-only

Which registrars has ICANN acted against? Lists the Contractual Compliance notices in this register — breach, suspension and termination — newest first, with the registrar, the date as ICANN prints it, the notice PDF and a verbatim quote of the notice line. Filter by action type or by date to see recent enforcement.

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "list_enforcement_actions"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`limit`	No	How many to return, 1–20. Default 20.
`since`	No	Optional ISO date, e.g. "2024-01-01". Only notices dated on or after it. ICANN prints dates in long form ("20 November 2017"); this filter compares an ISO form computed from that string here.
`action`	No	Optional: only this kind of notice.

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`notices`	Yes
`register`	No
`notices_matched`	Yes
`notices_returned`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedSep 21, 2026

TDQS

A4.1/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and no destructive effect, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds meaningful behavioral context: results are ordered newest first, dates appear exactly as ICANN prints them (not normalized), and each entry includes a notice PDF and a verbatim quote. These details help the agent set the right expectations beyond the structured annotations.

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 a compact two-sentence structure: a strong leading question, then a dense enumeration of contents, ordering, and filter options. Every clause contributes new information with no filler or redundancy.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness5/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a read-only list tool with three optional, fully documented parameters and an output schema, the description covers purpose, result contents, ordering, and filtering. The output schema handles return shape and annotations handle the safety profile, so nothing an agent needs to correctly invoke this tool is missing.

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%, and each parameter already has a clear description. The description only restates that filtering by action type or date is possible, adding no new semantic detail. The 'date as ICANN prints it' nuance is also already present in the since parameter's schema description, so the description adds minimal value here.

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 opening question 'Which registrars has ICANN acted against?' plus 'Lists the Contractual Compliance notices' gives a specific verb and resource. It enumerates the notice types (breach, suspension, termination) and the exact fields returned (registrar, date, PDF, quote), making the purpose far more specific than the title and clearly distinct from the sibling tools (registrar lookup and quote verification).

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 the use case — exploring ICANN compliance actions against registrars — and tells the reader they can filter by action type or date to see recent enforcement. However, it does not reference the sibling tools or state when not to use this one, so the guidance is more implied than explicit.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

All ICANN registrar accreditation status tools Inspect

Try in Browser

One endpoint for every MCP toolRayrun runs every MCP server behind one URL and holds the credentials. Each call is decided per client, tool, and argument, then recorded.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.