Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
mcp-namecheap

mcp-namecheap

by fantomdancer
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
JavaScript
Remote

namecheap_check_domain

Check if one or more domains are available for registration. Get availability and premium pricing details.

Instructions

Check if one or more domains are available for registration. Returns availability and premium pricing.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "domains": "<domains>"
    },
    "name": "namecheap_check_domain"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
domainsYesArray of domain names to check (e.g. ["example.com", "test.net"])

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv1.0.0

TDQS

A4/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states that it returns availability and premium pricing, but doesn't explicitly mention that it's read-only or side-effect free. For a simple check, this is adequate but not rich.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is a single sentence that clearly states the action and return value, with zero wasted words. It is front-loaded and easy to scan.

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?

This is a simple tool with one parameter, no output schema, and no annotations. The description fully covers what the tool does and what it returns, which is sufficient for an agent to invoke it correctly. Minor details like handling of invalid domains or pricing format are not essential.

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 coverage is 100% because the only parameter 'domains' is fully described. The description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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

Purpose5/5

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

The description uses a specific verb 'check' with a clear resource 'domain availability for registration' and mentions the unique return value (availability and premium pricing). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools that manage domains, DNS, or nameservers.

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?

The description establishes a clear context: checking domains before registration. It doesn't explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the purpose is distinct enough among siblings that no further guidance is necessary.

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