Skip to main content
Glama
Unique Domains MCP server

Unique Domains MCP server

Official

How current each part of the stored data is

ud_get_meta_freshness
Read-onlyIdempotent

Check the freshness of stored data and daily counts to see how current each part is before use.

Instructions

How current each part of the stored data is, with the day's counts. Use it when someone asks how fresh the stored data is. Takes no input.

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

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

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
fieldsNoComma-separated top-level keys to keep: asOf, scannedToday, checkedLast24h, lanes.

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

B3.3/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, closed-world, and non-destructive behavior, so the description only needs to add context. It adds that the tool returns day's counts, but 'Takes no input' is misleading because the schema includes an optional fields filter.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness3/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is short and front-loads the purpose and usage trigger. The final sentence, 'Takes no input,' is inaccurate given the optional schema parameter, so it does not earn its place.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness3/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

This is a simple read-only metadata tool with an output schema and strong annotations, so much of the needed context is already structured. The description is sufficient for the basic purpose but omits the optional fields filter and misleadingly implies no input is accepted.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters2/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so a baseline of 3 would normally apply. However, the description says 'Takes no input,' which contradicts the optional fields parameter and fails to explain that callers can subset the response using keys like asOf or lanes.

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?

The description clearly states the resource: currentness/freshness of stored data with daily counts. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from sibling metadata tools such as ud_get_meta_enums or ud_get_meta_providers, 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.

Usage Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

It gives an explicit usage trigger: 'Use it when someone asks how fresh the stored data is.' There is no guidance on when not to use it or which sibling metadata tool to choose instead, but the context is clear.

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