Skip to main content
Glama

domain-search-king-mcp

by io.github.johnsmalls22-rgb

find_available_domains

Generate brandable .com domain names for a business idea and return ONLY the ones that are currently AVAILABLE to register (verified live against the Verisign RDAP registry). Give a keyword and, ideally, a short description of the business for better names.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
countNoHow many names to return (1-24). Default 12.
keywordYesCore keyword or seed word, e.g. 'coffee'.
descriptionNoOptional. What the business does, e.g. 'a cozy late-night coffee roaster'.

TDQS

A4.2/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It reveals that results are verified live against the Verisign RDAP registry, only available domains are returned, and the names are brandable .com options. This is meaningful beyond the tool name.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the core behavior, and no filler. Every clause contributes either what the tool returns, how it verifies availability, or what input the user should provide.

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?

For a simple three-parameter tool with fully described schema, the description is effectively complete: it explains the output (available brandable .com names) and the verification behavior. It does not explicitly mention count defaults or sibling routing, but those are either in the schema or covered by other dimensions.

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 the baseline is 3. The description adds minor context by connecting the keyword and business description to better name generation, but does not add significant meaning beyond the schema.

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 description states a specific verb (generate), resource (.com domain names), and key constraint (only currently available, verified live against Verisign RDAP). It clearly distinguishes this idea-based brandable domain tool from the sibling check_domain and find_available_domains_by_pattern tools.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Clear context is provided: use this when you need brandable .com names for a business idea, and provide a keyword plus optionally a business description. It does not explicitly exclude alternatives or name sibling tools, but the usage context is unambiguous.

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

All domain-search-king-mcp 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

A4.4/5.0
Disambiguation4/5

check_domain is clearly distinct from the other two, but find_available_domains and find_available_domains_by_pattern both return available domains and could be confused without reading the descriptions carefully. The descriptions do separate them by generation vs pattern enumeration, so the ambiguity is limited.

Naming Consistency5/5

All tool names use a consistent imperative verb + noun pattern in snake_case: check_domain, find_available_domains, find_available_domains_by_pattern. The longer name is still predictable and follows the same convention.

Tool Count5/5

Three tools is a well-scoped set for a domain search and due-diligence service: one for evaluating an existing domain, one for generating available brandable domains, and one for pattern-based enumeration. Each tool has a distinct job and earns its place.

Completeness4/5

The set covers the core domain workflow of discovering available domains and performing due diligence on a candidate. Minor gaps exist: there is no dedicated exact-domain availability check, and pattern enumeration defaults to only .com and .net.

Resources