Monitor domain expiration by checking registration age, expiration countdown, registrar, nameservers, DNSSEC, and EPP transfer-lock status via IANA RDAP.
Inspect domain registration age, expiration countdown, registrar, nameservers, DNSSEC, and EPP transfer-lock status via authoritative IANA RDAP.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| domains | Yes | List of domains to inspect via RDAP. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It does disclose the data source ('authoritative IANA RDAP'), which implies a live registry lookup and a read-only operation, and it enumerates returned fields. It says nothing about failure modes for unregistered/invalid domains, rate limits, or latency, which for a network-dependent lookup tool is a meaningful omission.
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?
A single dense sentence with the most important capability (registration/expiry inspection) front-loaded. The long field enumeration is slightly list-heavy but every item earns its place by telling the agent what data comes back.
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?
With no output schema and no annotations, the description usefully enumerates the returned fields, which substitutes for a return-value spec. Missing only edge-case behavior (invalid domains, RDAP unavailability, rate limits) for what is otherwise a simple one-parameter read tool.
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?
Only one parameter exists and schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already fully documents 'domains'. The description adds no batching semantics, expected format, or limit on list size, so the baseline 3 applies.
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?
States a specific verb ('Inspect') and a precisely scoped resource (domain registration data) and enumerates the exact fields retrieved: age, expiration, registrar, nameservers, DNSSEC, EPP transfer-lock. This clearly separates it from siblings like monitor_ssl_tls_certificates and audit_domain_email_security, though it never explicitly names those alternatives.
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?
There is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, and no alternatives are named. The tool's applicability (checking expiry/registration status) is only inferable from the name and the field list, not stated as guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.