Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Unique Domains MCP server

Unique Domains MCP server

Official
by UniqueDomains
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Hybrid

A registrar's list prices, alphabetical by ending

ud_list_registrar_prices
Read-onlyIdempotent

Retrieve a registrar's list prices by domain ending, including first-year and renewal costs, to compare charges before buying or transferring a name.

Instructions

A registrar's list prices, alphabetical by ending. Use it when someone asks what one registrar charges for its endings, first year and renewal. Pass registrar (such as namecheap); the other inputs are optional.

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": {
      "registrar": "<registrar>"
    },
    "name": "ud_list_registrar_prices"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
fieldsNoComma-separated top-level keys to keep: extension, purchasePrice, renewalPrice, transferPrice, isPromo, currency, delisted.
registrarYesA registrar catalog slug of the nine, exactly (`name.com`, no `name-com` alias).

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 closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely behavioral detail beyond that: results are sorted alphabetically by ending and prices cover first-year and renewal. It says nothing about currency, promos, or delisted entries, which the fields parameter implies are in play.

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 short clauses, front-loaded with purpose, then a usage trigger, then the required parameter. No filler and nothing the agent must scan past to reach the operational detail.

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

Completeness4/5

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

An output schema exists, so return values need no explanation, and both parameters are fully described in the schema. What remains thin is comparative context: with many list_* siblings, a single clause on when this beats ud_list_tld_prices would close the gap.

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 coverage is 100%, with the registrar enum and fields keys fully documented in the schema, so baseline 3 applies. The description adds a concrete example value (namecheap) and notes the remaining inputs are optional, but supplies no new semantics for `fields` or the enum's slug format beyond what the schema already states.

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 with clear scope: list prices for "one registrar" across its endings. That scope implicitly distinguishes it from an aggregate price tool, but no sibling such as ud_list_tld_prices is named, so the differentiation is inferential 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: "Use it when someone asks what one registrar charges for its endings, first year and renewal." That maps a user question to the tool clearly. It stops short of saying when NOT to use it (e.g., for cross-registrar comparison), so no exclusions are offered.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools