Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Unique Domains MCP server

Unique Domains MCP server

Official
by UniqueDomains
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Hybrid

Every recorded status or contention change of the round

ud_list_tld_application_changes
Read-onlyIdempotent

List recorded status and contention changes for TLD applications, newest first, with optional filters by change type, date, or page size.

Instructions

Every recorded status or contention change of the round, newest first. Use it when someone asks what moved in the 2026 round lately, such as a withdrawal or a contention change. Every input is optional; limit sets the page size.

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_tld_application_changes"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
kindNoWhat changed.
limitNoPage size, 20 at most.
sinceNoA day or an ISO 8601 timestamp: changes seen at or after it.
cursorNoThe `meta.cursor` of the previous page.
fieldsNoComma-separated top-level keys to keep: applicationId, string, kind, before, after, seenAt.

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

A3.9/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, non-destructive and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavioral facts: results are newest-first and every input is optional, so the tool can be called bare. It does not mention cursor-based paging behavior or result-size expectations, which keeps it out of the top band.

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 ordering before the usage guidance. The opening sentence duplicates the title almost verbatim, which is minor waste, but nothing else is padded.

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?

With an output schema present, the description needn't explain return values, and annotations plus full schema coverage handle safety and parameters. What is slightly missing is scoping: the tool apparently spans the whole round rather than a single TLD, which an agent could misread given the many TLD-scoped siblings.

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 every parameter including the kind enum, since, cursor and fields projection is already documented by the schema; the baseline is 3. The description only restates that inputs are optional and that limit is the page size, which is already in the limit description, and adds no meaning for kind, since, cursor or fields.

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 names the exact resource (recorded status or contention changes of the round) and its ordering (newest first), which is more specific than the title's vague phrasing. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from the similarly named sibling ud_list_tld_changes, so an agent comparing the two must infer the difference from the words 'application' vs. 'tld'.

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?

'Use it when someone asks what moved in the 2026 round lately, such as a withdrawal or a contention change' gives a concrete triggering question and example event types. It stops short of exclusions or naming an alternative tool for TLD-level or price-level change queries, which would have made it a 5.

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