Suggest alternative domain names for a search query and optionally filter by TLDs to find available domain options.
Suggest alternative domain names for a search query. Read-only. Optionally filter by comma-separated TLDs, e.g. "com,io".
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| tlds | No | Comma-separated TLD filter, e.g. com,io | |
| query | Yes | Search query, e.g. a brand name | |
| pageSize | No | How many suggestions to return |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden and does state 'Read-only', which is a meaningful safety signal. However, it does not disclose return format, pagination/default page size, or possible absence of results, leaving the agent to guess at behavior beyond the read-only claim.
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?
Two short sentences, no filler, with the core purpose front-loaded and the modifier (read-only, optional TLD filter) placed after. Every word earns its place.
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?
For a 3-parameter read-only tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers purpose, safety, and the one non-obvious parameter nuance, but leaves response shape and default behavior unexplained. It is adequate but has clear gaps given the missing output schema.
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?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all three parameters. The description adds marginal value by re-emphasizing the optionality and comma-separated format of tlds, but this largely duplicates the schema's own parameter descriptions.
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?
The description states a specific verb and resource — 'Suggest alternative domain names for a search query' — which clearly conveys the operation. It implicitly distinguishes from siblings like domains_check_availability and domains_list, though it does not name any sibling explicitly.
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?
No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as domains_check_availability or domains_get_quote, nor any exclusions. The only usage hint is the optional TLD filter, which is parameter-level detail rather than tool-selection guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.