Skip to main content
Glama
imprvhub

Domain Availability Checker MCP

by imprvhub
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Remote

check_domain

Verify whether a domain name is registered via authoritative registry RDAP, WHOIS, or DNS. Pass a full domain like example.com, or a bare name to scan popular TLDs.

Instructions

Check whether a specific domain name is registered.

Give a full domain such as "example.com". Availability comes from the registry's
RDAP service where one exists, which is authoritative; for TLDs without RDAP the
registry's WHOIS server and DNS are used, and the result may come back
"undetermined" rather than guessing.

Args:
    domain: The domain to check, e.g. "mysite.com". A bare name with no
        top-level domain is checked across the popular TLDs instead.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
domainYes

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
resultYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed3 schema fields changedv0.5.0
    • addedInput schema / properties / domain
      Added value: +{
+  "title": "Domain",
+  "type": "string"
+}
    • removedInput schema / properties / domain_query
      Removed value: -{
-  "title": "Domain Query",
-  "type": "string"
-}
    • changedInput schema / required
      Previous value: -[
-  "domain_query"
-]New value: +[
+  "domain"
+]
  2. First observedv1.0.0

TDQS

A3.8/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden and does real work: it discloses the resolution chain (RDAP where available and authoritative, otherwise registry WHOIS plus DNS) and warns that results may return 'undetermined' rather than guessing. That is exactly the kind of uncertainty disclosure an agent needs. It omits rate limits, latency, and error behavior, keeping it below a 5.

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?

Front-loaded with the purpose in sentence one, followed by mechanism and then the Args block. Every section earns its place, though 'example.com' is used as an example twice (in the body and again in the args), a small redundancy. Size is appropriate for a single-parameter tool.

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?

An output schema exists, so return structure need not be described, and the description still helpfully flags the 'undetermined' outcome. With one parameter and a clear mechanism, the definition is complete enough to call correctly; only operational details like rate limits or error semantics are absent.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0% – the schema gives only a string type and required flag – so the description must compensate, and it does. It explains both accepted forms of the single parameter (full domain such as 'mysite.com' versus a bare name that is checked across popular TLDs), which materially changes what the call means and its cost.

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

Purpose4/5

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

The opening line states a specific verb and resource: 'Check whether a specific domain name is registered.' An agent immediately knows this is a registration-availability lookup, not a suggestion generator. It does not explicitly name the sibling suggest_domains, but the functional gap between them is unambiguous.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines3/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Usage guidance is limited to input format: pass a full domain like 'example.com', or pass a bare name to sweep popular TLDs. There is no when-to-use-vs-suggest_domains statement, no note on when the check is appropriate, and no exclusions. The input-form guidance is useful but only implicitly signals usage.

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