Skip to main content
Glama

NameSniper

by pro.namesniper
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

namesniper_generate

Generate new brand name ideas with AI from a business or project description, each enriched with a live .com availability check. Non-deterministic: repeated calls produce different names (identical requests are served from a 24-hour cache and flagged with cached: true). Typical latency 5-30 seconds. Returns JSON names[] with the name, an explanation, tags, a confidence score, and comAvailable. Requires an API key (paid plan) and counts against a daily generation quota. To riff on a name the user already has, use namesniper_alternatives instead (free, deterministic).

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
countNoNumber of names to generate (default: 25, max 30)
styleNoStyle: modern, classic, tech, creative, professional, playful, abstract, luxury, minimalist
userIdNoIgnored - derived from your API key
descriptionYesBusiness or project description to generate names for

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed1 schema field changed
    • changedInput schema / properties / userId / description
      Previous value: -"Ignored — derived from your API key"New value: +"Ignored - derived from your API key"
  2. Changed2 schema fields changed
    • changedInput schema / properties / count / description
      Previous value: -"Number of names to generate (default: 25)"New value: +"Number of names to generate (default: 25, max 30)"
    • addedInput schema / properties / userId
      Added value: +{
+  "description": "Ignored — derived from your API key",
+  "type": "string"
+}
  3. First observed

TDQS

A4.8/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden and does an excellent job: it discloses non-deterministic behavior, 24-hour caching with cached:true flag, typical latency 5-30 seconds, the return format (JSON names[] with fields), API key requirement, paid plan, and daily quota. No contradictions.

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?

The description is fairly long but well-structured: purpose first, then key behavioral traits, then alternatives. Every sentence adds unique value (caching, latency, quota, return shape, sibling guidance). Could be slightly tighter, but overall effective and front-loaded.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (generative AI, caching, latency, quota, no output schema), the description covers all essential aspects: what it does, non-determinism, caching behavior, performance expectations, return structure, authentication/quota, and alternatives. No gaps remain.

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

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all parameters. The description adds value beyond schema by clarifying that userId is ignored (derived from API key), and provides context for count (default 25, max 30) and style (enum listing). This enhances usability without redundancy.

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 generates new brand name ideas from a business description with live .com availability checks. It uses a specific verb ('Generate') and resource ('brand name ideas'), and later distinguishes from sibling namesniper_alternatives, leaving no ambiguity.

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?

Explicit guidance is provided: 'To riff on a name the user already has, use namesniper_alternatives instead (free, deterministic).' This directly tells the agent when not to use this tool and what alternative to use, fulfilling the usage guidelines dimension thoroughly.

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