Orivox AI Website Builder

get_domain_purchase_link

Get the link where the USER buys a domain. This tool does NOT purchase or register anything, and it never will -- no tool here can.

CALL THIS ONLY AT THE PAYMENT STEP -- after the user has named ONE domain and said they want to buy it. It is not part of searching or comparing: search_domains and check_domain already return prices, so browsing needs no link. Do not call it speculatively for a domain the user merely mentioned, and never for several candidates at once.

If warnings contains non_production_dashboard_origin the connector is pointed at a non-production dashboard: the link is NOT a real purchase page, so say that plainly instead of handing it over as one.

project_guid is OPTIONAL -- omit it to buy a domain on its own, exactly like the dashboard's domain-search page does; pass it only when the user wants the purchase pre-linked to a specific site (either way the domain connects to a site later via publish_website). Availability is re-verified with an exact registrar check before the link is issued: a taken domain returns byoa_domain_not_available instead of a link, and a successful response includes the live price, renewal_price, and premium flag -- repeat those to the user next to the link (premium first-year prices can be thousands; renewal cliffs are common). If warnings contains availability_unverified, the registrar check was unreachable: pass the link along but tell the user the domain may already be taken. Domain purchases cost real money and require payment and registrant details, so they happen only in the user's own logged-in Orivox dashboard session: give the user the purchase_url and tell them to complete the purchase in their browser. After they buy it, the domain appears in list_domains and can be connected to their site via publish_website(domain_guid=...).

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`domain_name`	Yes
`project_guid`	No

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.

Changed2 schema fields changedAug 24, 2026

addedInput schema / properties / project_guid

Added value: +{
+  "anyOf": [
+    {
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "null"
+    }
+  ],
+  "default": null
+}

removedInput schema / properties / project_id

Removed value: -{
-  "anyOf": [
-    {
-      "type": "string"
-    },
-    {
-      "type": "null"
-    }
-  ],
-  "default": null
-}

First observedAug 4, 2026

TDQS

A4.9/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does a lot: it says the tool never purchases anything, notes non-production dashboard warnings, explains availability re-verification and the unavailable return value, mentions warnings for unreachable registrar checks, and discloses that purchases require real money and happen in the user's logged-in session. This is rich behavioral context beyond what annotations would provide.

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?

Every sentence earns its place and the most important usage rule is front-loaded. The description is long, but each sentence covers a distinct behavioral or usage detail. It sacrifices brevity for critical safety and routing information; still structured.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness5/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Comprehensively covers purpose, when to call, when not to call, response semantics, warnings, safety/real-money context, and what happens after purchase (list_domains, publish_website). For a 2-parameter payment-adjacent tool with no annotations, this is complete.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters5/5

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, and it does. It explains project_guid is OPTIONAL with a clear when-to-omit and when-to-pass rule, and implies domain_name is the one domain the user named. It also explains the output semantics (live price, renewal_price, premium flag, purchase_url, byoa_domain_not_available) even though an output schema exists.

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?

States a specific verb+resource (get the link where the user buys a domain) and explicitly distinguishes itself from purchasing/registering, and from search_domains/check_domain. The agent can tell exactly what the tool does.

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

Usage Guidelines5/5

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

Gives explicit when-to-call guidance: ONLY at the payment step after the user has named ONE domain and said they want to buy it. Names alternatives (search_domains, check_domain) and explains why those already return prices so browsing needs no link. Also gives explicit when-not-to-call scenarios: not speculatively, not for several candidates.

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

All Orivox AI Website Builder tools Inspect

Try in Browser

RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

A3.8/5.0

Disambiguation4/5

Most tools pair a distinct action with a distinct resource and long descriptions make intent clear. Still, `search_domains` already provides exact-domain checks, overlapping with `check_domain`, and the `create_project` vs `create_new_site` vs `create_page` cluster takes careful reading.

Naming Consistency5/5

The vast majority are snake_case verb_noun: list_projects, create_project, delete_page, get_preview_url, write_asset, query_database, publish_website. The only visible outlier is whoami, but it is standard enough that it does not disrupt predictability.

Tool Count2/5

At 36 tools this is meaningfully heavier than the rubric's 'too many' threshold, even though the scope spans websites, backends, domains, gallery images, and databases. It makes selection harder and a sizeable portion of the surface is niche or lifecycle internal.

Completeness4/5

The core site lifecycle is well covered: project, htmlmanag, assets, preview/publish, validation, deletion, uploaded images, backend files/logs, database reading, domain search and purchase linking. Workable non-critical gaps exist, e.g. no separate project metadata rename and no direct way to delete database rows or a database outside of deleting the project.

Resources

Need Help?