Lists the domain extensions LWS sells with their purchase, renewal, transfer, and restore prices in EUR. Filter by a single extension such as '.fr' or 'fr'.
List the extensions LWS sells with their purchase, renewal, transfer and restore prices (EUR).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| tld | No | Only return this extension, e.g. '.fr' or 'fr' |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful context beyond that: prices are quoted in EUR and cover four distinct price categories (purchase, renewal, transfer, restore). It says nothing about pagination, ordering, or rate limits on what is presumably a large catalogue.
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?
One sentence, front-loaded with the verb and resource, then the return payload and currency. No filler whatsoever.
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?
An output schema exists, so return structure need not be explained, and annotations carry the safety profile. The description covers the resource, the price categories, and the currency. The only gap is routing against sibling price tools, which matters here given the crowded price/pricing neighbourhood.
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 100%, and the single optional 'tld' parameter is documented in the schema with an example ('.fr' or 'fr'). The description adds nothing about the filter, so the 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 ('List') and resource ('the extensions LWS sells') and enumerates the price categories returned (purchase, renewal, transfer, restore), which an agent can act on directly. It does not, however, explicitly distinguish itself from the sibling get_renewal_prices, leaving the overlap between 'all prices for every TLD' and 'renewal prices' to inference.
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?
There is no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of the closely related sibling get_renewal_prices. The agent must guess whether to call this or a narrower price tool.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.