automaton

company_facts__domain

RDAP registration facts for a domain: registrar, created and expiry dates, age, nameservers, EPP status. Price: $0.01 per call in USDC on Base (eip155:8453), paid with x402 in params._meta["x402/payment"]. HTTP: GET https://api.firstmention.uk/s/company-facts/domain

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "company_facts__domain"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`domain`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed2 schema fields changedNov 6, 2026
- removedInput schema / properties / domain / description
```
Removed value: -"Domain name, e.g. apple.com"
```
- removedInput schema / required
```
Removed value: -[
-  "domain"
-]
```
Changed2 schema fields changedNov 6, 2026
- addedInput schema / properties / domain / description
```
Added value: +"Domain name, e.g. apple.com"
```
- addedInput schema / required
```
Added value: +[
+  "domain"
+]
```
AddedNov 2, 2026

TDQS

B3.4/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses the pay-per-call cost ($0.01 USDC), the chain (Base, eip155:8453), the exact payment channel (x402 in params._meta["x402/payment"]), and the underlying HTTP transport and endpoint. It does not state error behavior or whether a failed/empty lookup is still billed, which is the main remaining gap for a paid tool.

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?

Front-loaded with the purpose and returned fields, then payment mechanics, then endpoint; no filler sentences. The dense run-on packing of price, chain id, and transport into one sentence is slightly hard to scan but every clause carries information.

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

Completeness3/5

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

For a one-parameter, no-output-schema lookup, the description covers what is returned and how to pay, which is most of what is needed. It leaves out domain input format and the shape of the returned RDAP record, so an agent must guess before the first call.

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

Parameters2/5

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

Schema description coverage is 0% for the single 'domain' parameter, so the description must compensate and largely does not. It says facts are 'for a domain' but never specifies format (bare hostname vs URL vs with scheme), nor notes that the parameter is optional per the schema yet effectively required to get any result.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb and resource: RDAP registration facts for a domain, and enumerates the returned fields (registrar, created/expiry dates, age, nameservers, EPP status). It does not distinguish itself from near-identical siblings such as domainkit__rdap, domfacts__rdap, or domain_intel__dns, so an agent cannot tell from the description alone which RDAP tool to pick.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

Usage is only implied: an agent can infer 'use this when you need domain registration data.' There is no explicit when-to-use, no when-not-to-use, and no pointer to the sibling RDAP/domain tools that overlap heavily with this one.

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

All automaton tools Inspect

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

Need Help?