Skip to main content
Glama
Unique Domains MCP server

Unique Domains MCP server

Official

Nine registrars whose daily price lists are compared

ud_list_registrars
Read-onlyIdempotent

Lists the nine registrars whose daily price lists are compared, in catalog order, so you can see which registrars the price comparisons cover.

Instructions

The nine registrars whose daily price lists are compared, in catalog order. Use it when someone asks which registrars the price comparisons cover. 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_list_registrars"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
fieldsNoComma-separated top-level keys to keep: slug, name, kind, ianaId, accredited, homepageUrl, siteUrl, logoUrl, endingsPriced.

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

A4/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, closed-world and non-destructive, so the safety profile is carried structurally. The description adds fixed cardinality (nine), catalog ordering and 'takes no input', but says nothing about the return shape beyond the output schema.

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?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with resource identity then the trigger condition. Both 'in catalog order' and 'Takes no input' carry a little useful information; minimal waste.

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 trivial fixed-list lookup with full annotation coverage, 100% schema coverage and an output schema, nothing an agent needs in order to select or call it 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 coverage is 100% and the optional 'fields' projection is fully documented with enumerable keys in the schema, so the baseline is 3. 'Takes no input' is mildly misleading given that optional parameter, though it correctly conveys there are no required inputs.

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?

Names the specific resource (the nine registrars whose daily price lists are compared) plus its ordering (catalog order), which distinguishes it from siblings like ud_list_registrar_prices and ud_list_iana_registrars.

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 an explicit trigger: 'Use it when someone asks which registrars the price comparisons cover.' No exclusions or named alternatives, but the intended use case is unambiguous for a fixed catalog lookup.

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