Generate domain name suggestions from a keyword and return available similar domains to help find alternatives for registration.
Get domain name suggestions based on a keyword. Returns a list of available similar domains.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| word | Yes | Keyword to generate domain suggestions |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations and no output schema, the description carries the full burden, but only says it returns 'available similar domains' – no detail on how many results, whether availability is freshly checked, pricing, or rate limits. The one behavioral claim (availability) is unverifiable and undetailed.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two economical sentences with the action front-loaded and the return value second. No filler, though the second sentence is nearly redundant with the first.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple one-parameter lookup tool the description is minimally adequate – it covers input source and return shape. It is thin on the behavioral side (result count, whether availability is real-time) and omits any routing to sibling tools.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
There is a single parameter with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema already explains 'word' as the keyword. The description adds nothing beyond that; baseline 3 applies.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
States a specific verb (Get/suggest) and resource (domain name suggestions) plus the input basis (keyword), which is enough to separate it from regru_check_domains. It stops short of explicitly naming how it differs from the check/registration siblings.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No when-to-use guidance and no alternatives named, even though regru_check_domains sits right next to it and answers an easily confused question (availability vs ideation). The agent must infer that this is for brainstorming rather than verifying.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.