Skip to main content
Glama

NameSniper

by pro.namesniper
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

namesniper_check_domains

Check whether a domain name is registered across multiple TLDs using DNS lookups with a registry-data fallback. Returns JSON with per-TLD results (available true/false with a 0-1 confidence score) and an available/taken summary. Pass details=true to add a registration record on each taken TLD (registrar, registeredAt, expiresAt, status, dropStage) read from the registry; registrant identity is usually redacted. Faster and narrower than namesniper_check when social handles are not needed. Free, rate-limited.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
nameYesThe domain name to check (without TLD)
tldsNoTLDs to check (default: com,org,net,app,dev,tech,io,co,ai)
detailsNoAttach registry registration details (registrar, dates, status, drop stage) to taken TLDs (default: false)

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed1 schema field changed
    • addedInput schema / properties / details
      Added value: +{
+  "description": "Attach registry registration details (registrar, dates, status, drop stage) to taken TLDs (default: false)",
+  "type": "boolean"
+}
  2. First observed

TDQS

A4.4/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the tool is free, rate-limited, uses DNS with a fallback, details parameter effect (details=true adds registration record), and notes registrant identity is usually redacted. It doesn't specify exact rate limits or what happens on DNS failure, but covers key behavioral traits well.

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?

The description is concise (4 sentences) and front-loaded with the core purpose, then adds optional detail, comparison to sibling, and constraints. Every sentence adds value without redundancy.

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?

The tool has 3 params (100% schema coverage) and no output schema. The description clearly explains the input parameters and the JSON structure of the output (per-TLD results with available/confidence and summary). It doesn't describe the exact JSON keys for the summary, and with no output schema, a bit more detail on the return format could help, but it's mostly complete.

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%, so the schema already documents all 3 parameters. The description adds value by explaining the 'details' parameter adds registration record (registrar, dates, status, dropStage) and clarifies registrant identity is redacted, but for 'name' and 'tlds' it adds little beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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?

The description clearly states the tool checks domain registration across multiple TLDs using DNS with a fallback, specifying the verb 'check', the resource 'domain names', the mechanism 'DNS lookups with registry-data fallback', and differentiates from sibling namesniper_check by noting it's faster and narrower when social handles are not needed.

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?

The description explicitly says when to use this tool: when social handles are not needed, as it's 'Faster and narrower than namesniper_check'. It also states it's free but rate-limited, providing clear guidance on usage context and an alternative (namesniper_check) for broader checks.

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

All NameSniper toolsInspect
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