Scopeweb

fetch

Read-onlyIdempotent

Everything we hold about one domain: whether it is registered, what it costs to claim AND what it renews at, and where each number came from. Pass a domain name as the id, for example "atlas.io".

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "id": "<id>"
    },
    "name": "fetch"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`id`	Yes	A domain name.

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description
`id`	Yes
`url`	Yes
`text`	Yes	Everything we hold, as prose.
`title`	Yes
`metadata`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed1 schema field changedOct 7, 2026

changedOutput schema / (root)

Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+  "properties": {
+    "id": {
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "metadata": {
+      "type": "object"
+    },
+    "text": {
+      "description": "Everything we hold, as prose.",
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "title": {
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "url": {
+      "type": "string"
+    }
+  },
+  "required": [
+    "id",
+    "title",
+    "text",
+    "url",
+    "metadata"
+  ],
+  "type": "object"
+}

First observedSep 14, 2026

TDQS

A3.6/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive/openWorld, so the lower bar applies. The description still earns credit by disclosing what the payload actually contains — registration state, both claim and renewal cost, and the source behind each number, the latter being a genuinely useful attribute an agent would not assume.

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 payload scope before the invocation instruction, and no filler. Even the caps on 'AND' usefully signals that both price figures are returned.

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 an output schema present, return shape needn't be spelled out, and the single parameter is fully covered. The one real omission is routing: nothing tells the agent why to prefer this over quote_domain or audit_domain, which matters given a crowded sibling set.

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 coverage is 100% and the schema already says 'A domain name', so the description mostly restates it. The example 'atlas.io' does add slight value by confirming a bare domain string rather than a numeric record id or URL, but that is marginal against a fully documented single parameter.

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?

The generic name 'fetch' is rescued by a precise description: it returns everything held about a single domain — registration status, claim price, renewal price, and provenance of each figure. That is a specific verb+resource. It never names the overlapping siblings (quote_domain, audit_domain, check_live), so differentiation rests on the word 'Everything' alone.

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?

The only guidance is invocation-level ('Pass a domain name as the id'), not selection-level. Nothing says when to reach for this versus quote_domain for pricing or audit_domain for health, even though the sibling list makes that routing decision non-trivial.

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

All Scopeweb tools Inspect

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

Need Help?