Check domain availability and WHOIS status by querying the global RDAP registry.
Query global RDAP registry from edge for domain availability and WHOIS status
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| domain | Yes | Target domain name (e.g. example.com) |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.2.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must carry full behavioral burden. It discloses that the tool performs a query (read-only) and explains the data source (RDAP) and edge execution, but omits details such as return format, potential errors, or whether the data is live or cached. This is adequate but not rich.
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, tightly worded sentence with no filler words. It is front-loaded with the verb and resource, making it immediately scannable and efficient.
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 tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description provides sufficient context: it states what it does, what data source it uses, and what information is returned (availability and WHOIS status). A slightly more detailed explanation of the output format would push it to a 5, but it is complete enough for this simplicity level.
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 provides 100% coverage for the only parameter, domain, with a clear example. The description adds no extra meaning to the parameter itself beyond the schema, only explaining the overall query scope. Thus, it meets the baseline but does not exceed it.
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 uses a specific verb "Query" and identifies the resource "global RDAP registry" along with the intended outcome "domain availability and WHOIS status." This clearly distinguishes the tool from its unrelated siblings and fully clarifies its purpose.
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 a clear usage context: it is for looking up domain registration data via RDAP. While no explicit alternatives or exclusions are listed, the sibling tools are entirely unrelated, so no points are deducted for missing comparative guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.