mcp-server-domain-tools

full_domain_audit

Audit a domain to evaluate brand score, TLD tier, and DNS connectivity, helping investors and webmasters assess domain quality and risk.

Instructions

Performs comprehensive domain audit including brand score, TLD tier analysis, and DNS connectivity checks.

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": "full_domain_audit"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`domain`	Yes	The domain to audit

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.0.0Oct 15, 2026

TDQS

C2.9/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses the audit's component checks, which is useful, but says nothing about whether it is read-only, that it performs live network/DNS queries, expected latency, failure modes, or cost. For a tool that reaches external DNS infrastructure this is a notable gap.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler; the main verb and resource come first and the enumerated contents follow. Nothing is wasted, though it is a minimum-length statement rather than a carefully structured one.

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

Completeness3/5

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

With only one parameter and no output schema, the description usefully names the three result categories, partially compensating for the missing return-value documentation. However, it omits the safety profile and any operational context an agent would need before invoking a network-touching audit.

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?

Schema description coverage is 100% for the single 'domain' parameter, so the schema already documents it fully. The description adds no format constraints (e.g., whether a subdomain or full URL is acceptable), so the baseline 3 applies.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb ('performs comprehensive domain audit') plus the resource ('domain') and enumerates the audit's components (brand score, TLD tier analysis, DNS connectivity checks). The sibling 'generate_brand_variations' is clearly a different verb, but the description never acknowledges or contrasts with it.

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?

No guidance on when to run this audit versus the sibling tool, no prerequisites, and no indication of whether results are cached or repeatable. The agent must infer usage entirely from the name and description.

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

Deploy Server