compare_tldsCompare registration, renewal, transfer, and same-registrar multi-year ownership costs for up to 100 domain extensions, using documented TLD metadata.
Batch-compare up to 100 extensions by cheapest registration, renewal, transfer, and same-registrar multi-year ownership cost, with documented TLD metadata.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| tlds | Yes | ||
| years | No | ||
| excludeRegistrars | No | ||
| includeRegistrars | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.3Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered elsewhere. The description adds modest value by disclosing the batch ceiling and that results include documented TLD metadata, but says nothing about rate limits, data freshness, or how missing TLDs are handled.
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?
A single dense sentence with the key scope (batch, 100 cap) and the comparison dimensions front-loaded. Nothing is padded, though the trailing 'with documented TLD metadata' clause is vague and earns less than its space.
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 read-only tool with no output schema and 0% parameter coverage, the description covers the core purpose adequately but omits the semantics of the two registrar-filter parameters and gives no sense of the result shape beyond 'metadata'. It is minimum viable rather than complete.
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?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description carries the full burden. It only hints at 'tlds' via the 'up to 100 extensions' phrasing and obliquely at 'years' via 'multi-year ownership cost'; the includeRegistrars and excludeRegistrars filters are never mentioned, leaving half the parameters undocumented in both places.
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?
The description states a specific verb (batch-compare) and resource (extensions/TLDs) and enumerates the four cost dimensions being compared. It implicitly separates itself from compare_registrars and cheapest_registrar by scoping to TLD extensions, but it never names an alternative, so it falls short of a 5.
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?
The word 'batch' and the 'up to 100' cap imply this is the multi-TLD comparison tool rather than a single-lookup one, but there is no explicit when-to-use statement, no prerequisites, and no routing to siblings like compare_registrars or calculate_domain_cost.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.