Skip to main content
Glama

domani

by run.domani

DNS Check

dns_check

Fast DNS-based domain existence check. Tests if a name is taken across many TLDs at once (faster than search, no pricing). Returns 'taken' (definitely registered) and 'candidates' (potentially available). Use this to narrow down before calling search for pricing. Use preset: 'extended' to check 30+ creative/exotic TLDs when basic ones are all taken.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
nameYesDomain name without TLD, e.g. 'myapp'
tldsNoTLDs to check, e.g. ['com', 'dev', 'ai', 'io']. Optional if preset is provided.
presetNoUse a curated TLD preset: 'basic' (10 common TLDs) or 'extended' (30+ including creative/exotic TLDs). Merged with explicit tlds if both provided. Defaults to 'basic' when tlds is omitted.

Schema Changelog

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

  1. First observed

TDQS

A4.5/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

No annotations are provided, but the description discloses the operational mechanism (DNS-based), the two output categories (taken vs candidates), and a limitation (no pricing). It also notes the speed advantage over search. This is meaningful behavioral context beyond the tool's name and schema.

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 four sentences, each providing distinct information: function, output, usage guidance, and a specific preset recommendation. No filler or redundancy.

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 no output schema, the description adequately explains the return categories and clearly defines the workflow context (pre-search filter). It covers the main decision points an agent needs: what the tool does, when to use it, and how to leverage the extended preset. The absence of output schema is compensated by the explicit 'taken/candidates' summary.

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 has 100% coverage with clear descriptions for all three parameters. The description adds limited additional parameter meaning, mainly the strategic use of the 'extended' preset in certain scenarios, but the schema already documents the parameter values and defaults. Thus baseline 3.

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 ('tests/checks') and resource ('domain existence across many TLDs at once'). Clearly distinguishes from sibling 'search' by noting speed and lack of pricing, and explicitly positions it as a pre-filter before search. Also indicates output types.

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?

Provides explicit guidance: 'Use this to narrow down before calling search for pricing.' Also recommends using the 'extended' preset when basic TLDs are taken. This tells the agent exactly when to invoke this tool and when to defer to search.

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

All domani toolsInspect
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

A3.5/5.0
Disambiguation3/5

While most tools have distinct purposes, several clusters overlap significantly (e.g., check_email, check_email_deliverability, get_email_deliverability, get_domain_email_status; buy_domain, buy_aftermarket, acquire_domain). The descriptions are detailed and help differentiate, but the sheer number of tools makes it challenging for an agent to select the correct one without careful reading.

Naming Consistency3/5

The dominant pattern is verb_noun with underscores (e.g., create_mailbox, list_domains), but there are notable inconsistencies: destructive actions mix delete/remove/cancel/revoke/unsell, and a few names deviate entirely (search, dns_check, domain_status). The pattern is recognizable but not uniformly applied.

Tool Count1/5

With 122 tools, this vastly exceeds the 50+ threshold for extreme mismatch. Even for a comprehensive domain and email platform, the tool count is overwhelming and will likely hinder agent performance through excessive choice and context bloat.

Completeness4/5

The server covers a wide range of domains, DNS, email, marketplace, negotiations, transfers, webhooks, tokens, and billing. Minor gaps exist, such as no update operation for mail rules, no direct domain deletion, and limited mailbox configuration beyond forwarding and credentials, but most lifecycle workflows are supported.

Resources