Skip to main content
Glama

domain_age

Domain registration date, age in days and registrar via RDAP Free check: https://sigtap-outreach-api.sigtap.workers.dev/preview/tools/domain-age = 200 demo sample, no wallet. Paid call: 402 challenge -> sign -> retry = settled on-chain. ($0.003 USDC on Base, x402)

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
domainYesDomain to look up

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
domainYes
verdictYes
age_daysYes
registrarYes
registrar_urlNo
registration_dateYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed1 schema field changed
    • changedOutput schema / (root)
      Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
      +  "properties": {
      +    "age_days": {
      +      "type": "number"
      +    },
      +    "domain": {
      +      "type": "string"
      +    },
      +    "registrar": {
      +      "type": "string"
      +    },
      +    "registrar_url": {
      +      "type": "string"
      +    },
      +    "registration_date": {
      +      "type": "string"
      +    },
      +    "verdict": {
      +      "type": "string"
      +    }
      +  },
      +  "required": [
      +    "domain",
      +    "verdict",
      +    "registration_date",
      +    "age_days",
      +    "registrar"
      +  ],
      +  "type": "object"
      +}
  2. First observed

TDQS

A3.6/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Discloses the free demo vs paid on-chain settlement flow, including the 402 challenge/sign/retry mechanism and exact price, which informs users of expected authentication/payment behavior.

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

Conciseness3/5

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

The description is a single dense run-on sentence mixing tool purpose with URL, costing, and payment flow, making it harder to parse quickly than a more structured format.

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?

Covers the core function, RDAP source, and free/paid access paths; since an output schema exists, the absence of return-value details is acceptable, though it could mention expected output format.

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?

The domain parameter is described in the schema as 'Domain to look up', providing basic meaning but no additional detail such as format or example beyond what the schema already states.

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?

Clearly states the tool looks up domain registration date, age in days, and registrar via RDAP, distinguishing it from sibling tools like crypto_price or weather.

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

Usage Guidelines2/5

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

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives; only free vs paid calling instructions are provided, which relate to cost rather than selection criteria.

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

Try in Browser

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.