Porkbun MCP Server

check_domain

Check domain name availability to see if it can be registered. Returns whether the domain is taken or available.

Instructions

Checks the availability of a domain name.

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": {
      "domain": "<domain>"
    },
    "name": "check_domain"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`domain`	Yes	The domain name to check availability for.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.0.0Aug 7, 2026

TDQS

B3.3/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It mentions a read-like operation but doesn't state whether it is read-only, what side effects (if any) exist, how rate limits apply, or what happens on error. This leaves significant ambiguity for an agent.

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, concise sentence with no filler or redundancy. It front-loads the core action and resource, making it easy to parse quickly.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness3/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

The tool is simple (one parameter, no output schema), so the description is minimally adequate. However, without an output schema, it fails to hint at what kind of result the agent should expect (e.g., boolean, status object), leaving some incompleteness.

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%, and the only parameter 'domain' already has a clear description. The tool description adds no further semantic detail, so it meets the baseline but doesn't surpass it.

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 clearly states the action ('Checks') and resource ('availability of a domain name'), making the tool's purpose immediately obvious. It also inherently distinguishes itself from sibling tools like list_domains or get_domain_pricing, which serve different functions.

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

Usage Guidelines2/5

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

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, no prerequisites, and no contextual hints. It is a bare functional statement, leaving the agent to infer usage entirely.

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