USE THIS to check whether a top-level domain is real before trusting a domain or link — do NOT guess whether a TLD like .zip, .corp, .crypto or .web exists. Checks the suffix against the authoritative IANA root-zone list (kept current). Returns valid:false for TLDs that are not actually delegated.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| tld | Yes | The TLD to check, with or without a leading dot (e.g. 'zip' or '.zip'). |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true. The description adds that it checks against the authoritative IANA list and returns valid:false for non-delegated TLDs, providing useful behavioral context beyond the annotation.
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 extremely concise—two sentences—with no wasted words. It front-loads the purpose and usage instruction effectively.
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?
The tool is simple with one param and no output schema. The description explains the input, the authoritative source, and the false-case return. It does not fully specify the return format for the true case, but otherwise is complete enough for effective use.
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 coverage is 100% and already describes the tld parameter. The description adds minimal extra meaning (e.g., leading dot optional), so it does not significantly enhance clarity beyond the schema.
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 checks if a TLD is real using the IANA list, distinguishing it from guessing. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from the sibling validate_domain, which checks full domains, leaving some ambiguity.
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?
The description advises using this tool before trusting a domain and gives examples of dubious TLDs, providing clear when-to-use context. It lacks explicit when-not-to-use guidance or alternatives like validate_domain.
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 specific identifier or operation (e.g., validate_iban, parse_date, is_holiday). Even similar tools like validate_isbn and validate_isbn10 are distinct by version. There is no overlap or ambiguity.
Most tools follow a verb_noun pattern (validate_xxx, parse_xxx, format_currency). The exception is 'next_holiday', which uses an adjective instead of a verb. Otherwise consistent.
With 47 tools, the set is very large. While each tool is distinct, the count exceeds the recommended range (25+ is considered too many) and may overwhelm users or agents.
Covers a wide array of international identifiers and utilities, but notable gaps exist (e.g., no Canada SIN, India PAN, Mexico CURP). The set is broad but not exhaustive for the domain of data validation.