Obtain a signed price for a one-year domain registration or renewal before purchase; renewals require the owner signature and availability is not a reservation.
Quote a one-year domain registration or renewal. Renewal requires the owner signature. Availability is not a reservation.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| domain | Yes | Exact registrable ASCII domain, e.g. example.com | |
| operation | No | register | |
| period_years | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description goes beyond that by disclosing an auth requirement (owner signature for renewals) and a side-effect caveat (availability is not a reservation), which is exactly the kind of extra context still useful under annotations.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Three short, front-loaded sentences with no filler; the core action, the renewal caveat, and the non-reservation warning each earn their place.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
With no output schema, the description carries the burden of explaining what a quote returns, and it is silent on price/currency, quote validity or expiry, and whether the quote can later be executed. It covers prerequisites well but leaves the return semantics an agent needs to act on the quote undefined.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is only 33% (only 'domain' is documented). The description compensates by explaining the fixed one-year period (the period_years const) and by framing the 'register' vs 'renew' operation enum and its signature requirement, adding meaning the schema does not carry.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
States a specific verb (Quote) plus the exact resource and scope (one-year domain registration or renewal), and the line 'Availability is not a reservation' makes clear it is a non-mutating price query rather than an action, distinguishing it from the sibling register/renew tools. An agent can route to it without opening the schema.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Adds the prerequisite that renewal requires the owner signature and that a quote does not reserve the domain, which implies you must follow with register to secure it. However, it never explicitly says when to call quote versus register/renew, or that it should be used before those tools, leaving the routing to inference.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.