Skip to main content
Glama

domain-search-king-mcp

by io.github.johnsmalls22-rgb
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

List available domains by keyword pattern

find_available_domains_by_pattern
Read-only

Exhaustively enumerate EVERY available domain matching a keyword PATTERN, across TLDs — the thing most domain tools/MCPs can't do. Give a keyword (or several) and a position: 'starts' (keyword+word, e.g. Bearoak), 'ends' (word+keyword, e.g. Oakbear), 'contains' (keyword inside a longer invented word, e.g. Oakbearen), or 'all'. Every candidate is verified live against the registry; only AVAILABLE domains are returned, grouped by TLD. Checks .com and .net by default.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
tldsNoWhich TLDs to enumerate (up to 6, any real TLD: com, net, org, io, ai, co, app, dev, xyz, store, shop, tech, blog, me, de, uk...). Default ['com','net'].
limitNoMax available domains to return (1-200). Default 60.
keywordYesKeyword(s) to build around, e.g. 'bear' or 'bear, bigbear' (comma/or-separated for several).
positionNoWhere the keyword sits: starts-with, ends-with, contains, or all. Default 'all'.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed3 schema fields changed
    • changedInput schema / properties / tlds / description
      Previous value: -"Which TLDs to enumerate. Default ['com','net']."New value: +"Which TLDs to enumerate (up to 6, any real TLD: com, net, org, io, ai, co, app, dev, xyz, store, shop, tech, blog, me, de, uk...). Default ['com','net']."
    • removedInput schema / properties / tlds / items / enum
      Removed value: -[
-  "com",
-  "net",
-  "org",
-  "io",
-  "co",
-  "info"
-]
    • addedInput schema / properties / tlds / maxItems
      Added value: +6
  2. First observed

TDQS

A3.8/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, non-destructive, openWorld). The description adds real behavioral context beyond that: candidates are verified live against the registry, only AVAILABLE domains are returned, results are grouped by TLD, and checks default to .com/.net. That is useful disclosure, though it doesn't mention rate limits or latency/cost of the exhaustive search.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Front-loaded with the core capability, then the input contract and defaults. Mostly efficient, though the aside 'the thing most domain tools/MCPs can't do' is promotional rather than instructive.

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?

With no output schema, the description carries return-value burden and does explain that output is only available domains grouped by TLD. All four parameters are documented in the schema. It is close to complete, missing only guidance on cost/time for exhaustive enumeration and how this tool relates to its siblings.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description earns extra credit by explaining the 'position' enum semantics with concrete examples (starts => Bearoak, ends => Oakbear, contains => Oakbearen) and restating the default. It adds interpretation beyond the raw schema descriptions.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb and resource: exhaustively enumerate available domains matching a keyword pattern across TLDs, with live registry verification. It implicitly distinguishes itself from generic 'domain tools/MCPs' but never names the actual siblings (check_domain, find_available_domains), so the agent must infer the split.

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?

It explains the input model clearly ('give a keyword and a position') and gives the default behavior (.com/.net, position 'all'), which implies usage. However, it never says when to reach for this tool versus check_domain or find_available_domains, nor any exclusions or prerequisites, so routing is left to inference.

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
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.

Resources