domain-suite-mcp

by oso95

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

TypeScript

Remote

renew_domain

Renew an existing domain by specifying the renewal period in years and optionally the provider.

Instructions

Renew an existing domain

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": "renew_domain"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`domain`	Yes	Domain name
`years`	No	Renewal period in years
`provider`	No	Provider name, or omit to auto-detect

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Mar 12, 2026

TDQS

B3.1/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the action without indicating side effects (e.g., charges), authorization needs, or what happens on success/failure. This is insufficient for a mutation tool.

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?

The description is a single succinct sentence with no superfluous words. However, it could include a bit more context without becoming verbose, such as noting that renewal extends the expiration date.

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

Completeness2/5

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

Given the tool performs a financial transaction (renewal likely incurs cost), the description should mention billing implications or confirmation actions. The lack of output schema means the description should clarify what the tool returns. It does not, leaving the agent unaware of success/failure states or side effects.

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?

All parameters are documented in the input schema with descriptions (100% coverage). The description adds the context that the domain must exist, which is not explicit in the schema but is implied. This adds marginal value beyond the structured data.

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 'Renew an existing domain' clearly specifies the action (renew) and the target (existing domain), differentiating it from sibling tools like register_domain or transfer_domain_in. The verb is precise and the resource is well-defined.

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, such as checking domain status first or prerequisites like being the owner. It does not mention exclusions or conditions like renewal window or required permissions.

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