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 and does well by disclosing key behavioral traits: it returns pricing information (beyond just availability) and specifies a rate limit (1 check per 10 seconds). It does not mention error handling or authentication needs, but covers essential operational aspects.

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 appropriately sized with two sentences: the first states the purpose and output, and the second adds critical behavioral context (rate limiting). Every sentence earns its place without waste.

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 low complexity (single parameter, no annotations but with output schema), the description is complete enough. It explains what the tool does, what it returns, and operational constraints, and the output schema will handle return value details.

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?

The schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents the single 'domain' parameter fully. The description does not add any meaning beyond what the schema provides (e.g., format examples or validation rules), meeting the baseline for high 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 specific action ('checks the availability') and resource ('domain name'), and distinguishes it from the sibling tool 'bulk_check_domains_availability' by implying this is for single-domain checks versus bulk operations.

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 clear context for when to use this tool (checking domain availability and pricing), but does not explicitly state when not to use it or name the sibling alternative. The rate limit note indirectly suggests usage constraints.

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