Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
mcp-si-radar

mcp-si-radar

by tudadada
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
JavaScript
Remote

si_fast_checkout

Generate instant deep-links to registrar checkout pages for .si domains, bypassing slow web search bars to speed up purchases.

Instructions

Generates instant deep-links to registrar shopping carts/checkout pages (Dynadot, Spaceship, Namecheap, Porkbun), bypassing laggy web search bars.

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": "si_fast_checkout"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
domainYesTarget .si domain name to purchase (e.g. 'kinging.si')

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv1.0.2

TDQS

B3.4/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses core behavior by saying it generates links rather than completing purchases, and adds 'instant' and bypasses search bars. However, it does not state whether the operation is read-only, requires auth, or has side effects.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is a single, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. Every clause contributes: the verb, the resource, the supported registrars, and the key benefit.

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

Completeness4/5

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

For a simple one-parameter tool with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description adequately explains what it generates and for which registrars. It does not mention the .si domain context (left to the schema) or return cardinality, but these are minor gaps.

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% and the single required parameter ('domain') is well documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter-specific syntax or format details beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline of 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 ('Generates instant deep-links') and resource ('registrar shopping carts/checkout pages'), and names the target registrars. It distinguishes itself functionally from siblings like si_check_domain and si_api_register, but does not explicitly contrast with them.

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 explicit when-to-use guidance or alternatives are provided. The phrase 'bypassing laggy web search bars' hints at a use case, but there is no comparison to sibling tools such as si_api_register or si_check_domain.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools