Generate industry-specific domain name combinations with a target keyword and verify availability via RDAP to find 100% available domains.
Generates industry-specific combinations (prefix/suffix) with a target keyword and checks Verisign RDAP to return 100% AVAILABLE domains.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| keyword | Yes | Target keyword | |
| industry | No | Target industry dictionary | |
| position | No | Position of keyword |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
There are no annotations, so the description must carry behavioral disclosure. It does reveal that the tool makes a network request to Verisign RDAP and returns only available domains, which is useful. However, it does not mention rate limits, failure modes, response size, or what happens when no matches are found.
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?
The description is a single, compact sentence that front-loads the primary action and includes the key verification behavior and result promise. No filler words or redundant details are present.
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?
The description explains the core purpose and outcome, but there is no output schema and no mention of return format, combination examples, TLD scope, or error handling. Given the tool's reliance on a live RDAP check referenced only vaguely, an agent has enough to attempt a call but not enough to fully anticipate response behavior.
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?
The input schema already covers all three parameters with descriptions, giving a baseline of 3. The description adds context that the keyword is combined with prefix/suffix options from an industry dictionary, but it does little beyond what the schema already states.
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 action: generating industry-specific prefix/suffix combinations with a target keyword and checking Verisign RDAP for available domains. This clearly conveys the tool's function)Skip mentions the resource and outcome, though it does not explicitly distinguish itself from the sibling tool scan_keyword_tlds.
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?
The description implies usage when the user needs industry-specific domain combinations with availability checking, but it provides no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. The sibling tool scan_keyword_tlds is not mentioned or contrasted, leaving the agent to infer which tool is appropriate.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.