Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Unique Domains MCP server

Unique Domains MCP server

Official
by UniqueDomains
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Hybrid

2026 new gTLD round as ICANN publishes it

ud_list_tld_applications
Read-onlyIdempotent

Lists 2026 new gTLD applications from ICANN A to Z, showing applicants, status, and contention sets so you can identify who applied for new endings or which strings are contested.

Instructions

The 2026 new gTLD round as ICANN publishes it, A to Z, with two simple bands. Use it when someone asks who applied for new endings in the 2026 round, or which strings are contested. 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_applications"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
qNoThe string, its U-label, the applicant, the contention set or the country contains this text.
popNoWord popularity band.
typeNoThe boards' reading of ICANN's type.
wordNoThe string is a word of the catalog's corpus.
limitNoPage size, 20 at most.
salesNoComparable sales band.
cursorNoThe `meta.cursor` of the previous page.
fieldsNoComma-separated top-level keys to keep: applicationId, string, uLabel, applicant, applicantCountryCode, type, status, contentionSet, announcedOn, wordPopularityBand, comparableSalesBand, typeKey, statusKey, setSize, applicantCount, inWordCorpus.
statusNoThe boards' reading of ICANN's status.
contentionNoIn a contention set, or not.

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

B3.4/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered elsewhere. The description adds a little operational context - every input is optional and `limit` governs page size, implying a paginated crawl - but says nothing about ordering, defaults, or result volume beyond that. With the output schema present, the remaining gap is modest.

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 compact sentences, and the actionable usage trigger is placed where an agent will read it. The opening clause ('A to Z, with two simple bands') is decorative rather than informative, which is the only real waste.

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?

For a 10-parameter optional-filter list tool with a full output schema and complete annotation coverage, the definition covers the essentials: what the rows represent, when to reach for it, and that paging is opt-in via limit/cursor. It could say more about result shape or how the bands and contention filter interact, but the structured fields carry that load.

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% with five enums and per-field docs, so the baseline is 3. The description only touches `limit` ('page size'), which the schema already states, and gestures at 'two simple bands' without connecting it to the popularity/sales band filters. It adds essentially no meaning beyond the schema.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose3/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The second sentence does say what it returns - applicants for new endings in the 2026 round and contested strings - so the resource is identifiable as the applications list. But the lead sentence ('as ICANN publishes it, A to Z, with two simple bands') is sloganeering that never names a verb or the resource directly, and nothing distinguishes it from siblings like ud_list_tld_application_changes or ud_get_tld_application_string.

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 trigger: use when someone asks who applied for new endings in the 2026 round, or which strings are contested. That is a clear when-to-use condition. What is missing is any when-not-to-use or routing to the overlapping siblings (application changes, single-string lookup), so it stops short of 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