Porkbun Domain Availability MCP Server

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It effectively discloses critical behavioral traits: the rate limit constraint ('Porkbun API rate limits (1 check per 10 seconds)'), runtime estimates ('5 domains = ~50 seconds, 10 domains = ~100 seconds'), and the non-destructive nature (implied by 'checks availability'). This goes beyond basic functionality to inform about performance and limitations.

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?

The description is front-loaded with the core functionality, followed by warnings and comparative benefits. Each sentence earns its place: the first states the purpose, the second explains runtime constraints with examples, and the third justifies usage versus alternatives. It is efficiently structured without redundancy.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (bulk operation with rate limits), no annotations, and the presence of an output schema (which handles return values), the description is complete. It covers purpose, usage guidelines, behavioral transparency (rate limits, runtime), and parameter constraints, providing all necessary context for an agent to invoke it correctly.

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 100%, with the parameter 'domains' documented as 'Array of domain names to check for availability.' The description adds marginal value by specifying the maximum array size ('up to 10 domains names at once'), but does not provide additional syntax or format details beyond what the schema already covers. This meets the baseline for high schema coverage.

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?

The description clearly states the verb ('checks') and resource ('availability of up to 10 domains names at once'), distinguishing it from the sibling tool 'check_domain_availability' by specifying bulk capability. It explicitly mentions the maximum batch size (10 domains), making the purpose specific and differentiated.

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?

The description provides explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives: it states that 'the bulk tool provides better user experience and consolidated results compared to making multiple single domain check calls,' directly referencing the sibling tool. It also warns about runtime implications, helping users decide based on performance trade-offs.

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