Skip to main content
Glama

domani

by run.domani

Search Domains

search

Check availability and price for one or more domains. Pass full domain names (e.g. mysite.com). For bulk TLD search, pass an array like ["myapp.com", "myapp.io", "myapp.dev"]. Uses RDAP + retail pricing.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
sortNoSort results by price or TLD name (default: price)
orderNoSort order (default: asc)
sourceNoFilter results: 'all' (default), 'primary' (new registrations only), 'secondary' (marketplace listings only). Use source='secondary' with domains=['*'] to browse all marketplace listings.
domainsYesFull domain names to check, e.g. ["myapp.com", "myapp.io"]
max_priceNoMaximum price in USD to filter results

Schema Changelog

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

  1. First observed

TDQS

A4.2/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden of transparency. It discloses that the tool uses RDAP and retail pricing, which is useful source context, but it does not explicitly state that the operation is read-only or describe any side effects, auth requirements, or rate limits. 'Check' implies non-mutating behavior, but it could be more explicit.

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 short sentences, purpose stated first, and every sentence earns its place. The examples and the RDAP/pricing note are directly useful for selecting and calling the tool, with no filler or repetition of schema details.

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?

Given the tool has 5 parameters and no output schema, the description adequately covers the core invocation patterns: single domain, bulk array, and hints at filtering through the schema. It does not describe the return format, but 'Check availability and price' implies the response will contain that info. The schema covers details like sort/order/source/max_price, so the description is nearly complete.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by giving a concrete example of domain arrays for bulk search and clarifying that full domain names (rather than bare TLDs) should be passed. This goes beyond the schema's 'Full domain names to check' by illustrating multi-domain usage.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Check availability and price for one or more domains.' It clearly distinguishes this tool from siblings like suggest_domains or whois_lookup by focusing on availability/price checks with full domain names. The 'bulk TLD search' and 'Uses RDAP + retail pricing' details further define the tool's unique scope.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

The description gives clear, actionable instructions: pass full domain names, and for bulk TLD search pass an array of domains. It states the exact input format with an example. However, it does not explicitly mention when to prefer this over browse_marketplace or suggest_domains, nor does it state when not to use it.

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