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 checked against the registry (cached answers up to 10 minutes old); only AVAILABLE domains are returned, grouped by TLD. Checks .com and .net by default.

Input 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 (readOnlyHint, destructiveHint=false), but the description adds real operational context: candidates are checked against the registry, answers may be up to 10 minutes stale, only AVAILABLE domains are returned, and results are grouped by TLD. That caching and filtering behavior is not derivable from the annotations and is genuinely useful.

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 and the position vocabulary before the defaults, with no wasted sentences. The aside about what other domain tools/MCPs can't do is mildly promotional but does not obscure the actionable content.

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 read-only enumeration tool with no output schema, the description covers the essentials: what is searched, how results are filtered (available only), how they are grouped, and the caching window. Only the sibling-routing gap keeps it from being fully complete.

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 goes beyond the schema by giving concrete worked examples for each position value (Bearoak, Oakbear, Oakbearen) and restating the multi-keyword comma syntax and .com/.net default in prose. The position examples materially clarify an enum whose labels alone could be ambiguous.

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 explicit position modes. It contrasts itself against 'most domain tools/MCPs' generally but never names the very close sibling find_available_domains, so an agent still has to guess which of the two to pick.

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 shows how to invoke it (give a keyword plus a position, with examples for starts/ends/contains/all) and notes that only available domains are returned. However, it never says when to use this instead of the near-identical sibling find_available_domains, nor when a simple check_domain is sufficient, 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
Shareable, User-Owned Context BackendPeople, applications, and agents read, write, and coordinate together in one context lake. Reach it over MCP, a CLI, a Python SDK, or REST.fulcradynamics.comAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources