search_domainsCheck availability and USD price for a name across TLDs. Each result has premium (boolean; premium = registry price + 12%) and renewal_price (USD/yr). If the name is taken, suggestions[] lists close AVAILABLE alternatives (live-checked, cheapest first).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| q | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Output schema / (root)Previous value: -{
- "properties": {
- "body": {
- "type": [
- "object",
- "array",
- "string",
- "null"
- ]
- },
- "http_status": {
- "type": "integer"
- }
- },
- "required": [
- "http_status",
- "body"
- ],
- "type": "object"
-}New value: +nullOutput schema / (root)Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+ "properties": {
+ "body": {
+ "type": [
+ "object",
+ "array",
+ "string",
+ "null"
+ ]
+ },
+ "http_status": {
+ "type": "integer"
+ }
+ },
+ "required": [
+ "http_status",
+ "body"
+ ],
+ "type": "object"
+}Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds useful behavioral detail beyond annotations: premium pricing is registry price + 12%, renewal_price is USD/yr, and suggestions[] are live-checked and sorted cheapest first.
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 three dense, front-loaded sentences with no filler. The primary action comes first, followed by result semantics and the fallback suggestion behavior.
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?
For a simple read-only search with no output schema, the description covers the key return fields: availability, premium status, renewal price, and live-checked suggestions. The main remaining gap is q's expected format, which is important but does not make the tool uncallable.
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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate for the single q parameter. It says 'for a name across TLDs,' which hints that q is a domain label, but it does not specify format, whether q should include a TLD, allowed characters, or examples.
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 uses a specific verb and resource: 'Check availability and USD price for a name across TLDs.' It clearly distinguishes the core function from generic domain search, but does not explicitly differentiate itself from siblings like suggest_domains or search_aftermarket.
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 implies the tool is for checking availability and price, but gives no explicit guidance on when to use it versus alternatives such as suggest_domains, quote_domain, or search_aftermarket. No when-not conditions or prerequisites are stated.
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.