Skip to main content
Glama
Unique Domains MCP server

Unique Domains MCP server

Official

One IANA registrar by id

ud_get_iana_registrar
Read-onlyIdempotent

Retrieve a single IANA registrar by numeric ID to identify the registrar's name, status, and RDAP base URL.

Instructions

One IANA registrar by id. Use it when someone holds an IANA registrar number and asks who it is. Pass id (such as 1861).

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

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

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
idYesIANA registrar id.
fieldsNoComma-separated top-level keys to keep: id, name, status, rdapBaseUrl.

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
dataNo
metaNoThe day of the answer, and the page cursor of a list.
linksNoLinks of the answer.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.4

TDQS

A3.8/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, and non-open-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds no behavior beyond that — nothing about what happens when the id is unknown, or how the `fields` projection affects the response. With an output schema present, this is acceptable but thin.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the resource and immediately followed by the trigger condition. The opening sentence restates the title verbatim, a small redundancy, but nothing else is wasted.

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 single-record lookup, the definition plus full schema coverage, rich annotations, and an output schema give an agent everything needed. No behavioral or structural gaps remain that would affect a correct call.

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%, so both `id` and `fields` are documented in the schema itself. The description only supplies an example value (1861), which is a marginal addition over the schema's type and minimum constraints.

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 ('One IANA registrar by id'), and the singular framing contrasts implicitly with ud_list_iana_registrars. It never names that sibling, so the differentiation is inferable rather than explicit.

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?

Gives a concrete usage trigger: when a caller holds an IANA registrar number and asks who it is. It does not name alternatives or state when not to use it (e.g. browsing or searching by name), leaving that to inference.

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