Score a domain name's brand quality across pronounceability, memorability, radio test, syllable balance, and visual symmetry to compare naming options.
Grades domain name on pronounceability, memorability, radio test, syllable balance, and visual symmetry.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| domain | Yes | The domain name to evaluate |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses the evaluation dimensions an agent should expect, but says nothing about the return form (per-dimension scores, letter grade, rationale), determinism, or whether the input is treated as a bare name vs a URL — and there is no output schema to fill that gap.
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?
One sentence, front-loaded with the verb and resource, and the criteria list is dense with no filler. Every clause 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 simple one-parameter analysis tool this is close to adequate, but with no output schema the description should state what the 'grade' returns. Absent that, an agent knows what is evaluated but not what comes back.
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?
There is a single required 'domain' parameter with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema already carries the semantics. The description adds no format details (e.g., whether to pass 'example.com' or 'example'), so 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 ('grades') and resource ('domain name'), then enumerates the exact criteria (pronounceability, memorability, radio test, syllable balance, visual symmetry). The purpose is unmistakable, but it makes no reference to its only sibling, screen_category_vs_trademark, so sibling differentiation relies on the reader noticing they address different concerns.
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 guidance on when to use this tool versus the trademark-screening sibling, nor any prerequisite or scope statement. Usage is only weakly implied by 'grades domain name'.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.