Skip to main content
Glama
LearnerSumit

domain-checker-mcp

by LearnerSumit
OverviewSchemaRelated ServersScoreDiscussions
TypeScript
Hybrid

Server Quality Checklist

67%
Profile completionA complete profile improves this server's visibility in search results.

  • Latest release: v1.0.0

  • Disambiguation5/5

    There is only one tool, so an agent cannot confuse it with any other operation. The name and description clearly explain what it does and what inputs it expects.

    Naming Consistency5/5

    The single tool uses a clear verb_noun convention: check_domain_availability. With only one tool, there are no naming clashes or inconsistent patterns to create confusion.

    Tool Count4/5

    One tool is slightly under the typical 3-15 range, but for the server's narrow purpose of checking domain availability, it is a reasonable and focused surface. It could arguably include additional domain-related tools, but the count is not excessive or trivially mismatched.

    Completeness5/5

    For the stated purpose of checking whether a domain is available for registration, the tool covers the core operation fully: it validates the TLD, returns availability, and indicates the lookup method. There are no obvious dead ends within this narrow domain.

  • Average 4.3/5 across 1 of 1 tools scored.

    See the Tool Scores section below for per-tool breakdowns.

    • No community issues in the last 6 months
    • 8 commits in the last 12 weeks
    • No stable releases found
    • No critical vulnerability alerts
    • No high-severity vulnerability alerts
    • No code scanning findings
    • CI is passing

  • This repository is licensed under MIT License.

  • This repository includes a README.md file.

  • No tool usage detected in the last 30 days. Usage tracking helps demonstrate server value.

    Tip: use the "Try in Browser" feature on the server page to seed initial usage.

  • Add a glama.json file to provide metadata about your server.

  • If you are the author, simply .

    If the server belongs to an organization, first add glama.json to the root of your repository:

    {
  "$schema": "https://glama.ai/mcp/schemas/server.json",
  "maintainers": [
    "your-github-username"
  ]
}

    Then . Browse examples.

  • Add related servers to improve discoverability.

How to sync the server with GitHub?

Servers are automatically synced at least once per day, but you can also sync manually at any time to instantly update the server profile.

To manually sync the server, click the "Sync Server" button in the MCP server admin interface.

How is the quality score calculated?

The overall quality score combines two components: Tool Definition Quality (70%) and Server Coherence (30%).

Tool Definition Quality measures how well each tool describes itself to AI agents. Every tool is scored 1–5 across six dimensions: Purpose Clarity (25%), Usage Guidelines (20%), Behavioral Transparency (20%), Parameter Semantics (15%), Conciseness & Structure (10%), and Contextual Completeness (10%). The server-level definition quality score is calculated as 60% mean TDQS + 40% minimum TDQS, so a single poorly described tool pulls the score down.

Server Coherence evaluates how well the tools work together as a set, scoring four dimensions equally: Disambiguation (can agents tell tools apart?), Naming Consistency, Tool Count Appropriateness, and Completeness (are there gaps in the tool surface?).

Tiers are derived from the overall score: A (≥3.5), B (≥3.0), C (≥2.0), D (≥1.0), F (<1.0). B and above is considered passing.

Tool Scores

  • Behavior4/5

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

    Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, openWorld, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds useful behavioral detail beyond that by naming the return fields (availability, TLD validity, lookup method) and noting WHOIS is typical. No contradictions with annotations.

    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?

    Three concise sentences: the first states purpose, the second gives input guidance, the third describes the output. No filler or redundant content.

    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?

    For a simple read-only tool with two fully documented parameters, the description covers invocation and return values, and annotations cover side-effect safety. Nothing essential is missing.

    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 description coverage is 100%, and the schema already documents both `name` and `tld` with examples and constraints. The description's 'provide name and TLD separately' mostly reinforces the schema rather than adding new semantic meaning.

    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 states a specific verb ('Check whether a domain name is available for registration') and a clear resource. It also explains the input pattern, making the tool's purpose unambiguous even without sibling tools to differentiate.

    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 makes the usage context clear: use it to check domain availability for registration. There are no sibling tools to contrast with, so explicit exclusions aren't necessary. It could be more explicit about when not to use it, but the intent is obvious.

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

GitHub Badge

Glama performs regular codebase and documentation scans to:

  • Confirm that the MCP server is working as expected.
  • Confirm that there are no obvious security issues.
  • Evaluate tool definition quality.

Our badge communicates server capabilities, safety, and installation instructions.

Card Badge

domain-checker-mcp MCP server

Copy to your README.md:

Score Badge

domain-checker-mcp MCP server

Copy to your README.md:

Latest Blog Posts

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/LearnerSumit/domain-checker-mcp'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server