name.ai WebMCP audit

Name: name.ai WebMCP audit
Creator: ora

Rescan

audited Oct 26, 2026in 8s

52/ 100Incomplete audit · 47% of the applicable check weight evaluated

3 tools registered. Strongest in tool quality, weakest in trust. Tool selection was not measured.

Shared experience50

Tool selectionN/A

Tool quality96

Trust0

https://name.ai

Tools

0 read, 0 write, 3 undeclared

Loading map

search_domain

Check whether a domain name is available to register on name.ai, with alternatives on other TLDs.No behaviour hints declared. Agents should treat it as possibly state-changing.

pagehttps://name.ai/

implementation

viaimperative

entry pointdocument

registered after112ms

executepresent

api surface

queryrequired

annotations

read onlynot declared

untrusted contentnot declared

titlenot declared

2 findings

failAnnotations present

weight 4

1 of 1 read-shaped tools do not declare readOnlyHint: true, so an agent has to treat them as possible writes and ask before calling. (Declaring readOnlyHint: false earns nothing - it is the default.)

search_domain

fix

{
  name: "search_domain",
  // Declare readOnlyHint: true on tools that truly have no side effects -
  // that is the claim that lets an agent relax confirmation on reads.
  // (false is the default, so declaring it adds no information.)
  annotations: { readOnlyHint: true }
}

warningHuman parity

weight 8

3 tools run through the JavaScript API and the page itself was not graded on this run, so parity could not be confirmed. A visible effect in your existing UI when a tool runs closes the gap.

search_domain, whois_lookup, tld_registration_price

fix

// Make the tool's effect visible on the page the person is looking at:
// update the same UI your existing human flow uses when search_domain runs,
// so the person co-browsing sees what the agent just did.
execute: async (args, { signal }) => {
  const result = await performAction(args, signal);
  renderResultInPage(result); // the human-visible half of the same action
  return result;
}

tool json

{
  "name": "search_domain",
  "description": "Check whether a domain name is available to register on name.ai, with alternatives on other TLDs.",
  "inputSchema": {
    "type": "object",
    "properties": {
      "query": {
        "type": "string",
        "description": "A domain name to check, e.g. \"acme.ai\"."
      }
    },
    "required": [
      "query"
    ]
  },
  "annotations": {}
}

Findings

Shared experience

50 / 100 · weight 30

not applicableVisible effect

weight 6

Not invoked on this run: this audit did not call any tool. Scheduled re-audits only read the registry; a live audit from the report page calls the tools that declare readOnlyHint: true and not consequentialHint: true.

not measuredPage experience

weight 16

The page-experience model hop returned no usable result, so the page was not graded.

warningHuman parity

weight 8

3 tools run through the JavaScript API and the page itself was not graded on this run, so parity could not be confirmed. A visible effect in your existing UI when a tool runs closes the gap.

toolsearch_domain

search_domain, whois_lookup, tld_registration_price

fix

// Make the tool's effect visible on the page the person is looking at:
// update the same UI your existing human flow uses when search_domain runs,
// so the person co-browsing sees what the agent just did.
execute: async (args, { signal }) => {
  const result = await performAction(args, signal);
  renderResultInPage(result); // the human-visible half of the same action
  return result;
}

Tool selection

not measured

not applicableInvoke success rate

weight 6

not measuredTool selection

weight 12

The tool-selection model hop returned no usable result.

not applicableCoverage vs. site type

weight 7

This tool set does not place the site in a category with a known expected tool shape, so there is no coverage baseline to score it against.

Tool quality

96 / 100 · weight 25

passRegistration timing

weight 1

Every measured tool registered within 113ms of navigation.

tooltld_registration_price

passCanonical entry point

weight 3

All 3 tools register on the canonical document.modelContext entry point.

passSchema validity

weight 4

All 3 declared input schemas are structurally valid object schemas.

passSchema quality

weight 4

All 3 tool schemas describe their parameters, and every description stays within Chrome's size guidance.

warningNaming quality

weight 2

Tool naming makes selection harder than it needs to be: 2 names do not start with a verb (whois_lookup).

toolwhois_lookup

fix

{ name: "whois_lookup" /* short, unique, verb-based */ }

passStub detection

weight 4

All 3 tools declare an execute handler.

passRegistration errors

weight 2

No tool registration threw during the capture.

not measuredDescription quality

weight 5

The description-quality model hop returned no usable result, so descriptions were not rated.

Trust

0 / 100 · weight 20

failAnnotations present

weight 4

1 of 1 read-shaped tools do not declare readOnlyHint: true, so an agent has to treat them as possible writes and ask before calling. (Declaring readOnlyHint: false earns nothing - it is the default.)

toolsearch_domain

search_domain

fix

{
  name: "search_domain",
  // Declare readOnlyHint: true on tools that truly have no side effects -
  // that is the claim that lets an agent relax confirmation on reads.
  // (false is the default, so declaring it adds no information.)
  annotations: { readOnlyHint: true }
}

not applicableAnnotation mismatch

weight 4

No tool declares a readOnlyHint, so there is no safety claim to contradict.

not applicableUntrusted content hint

weight 3

No tool's contract suggests it returns text written by somebody other than the site, so there is nothing to flag as untrusted.

not applicableConsequential hint

weight 3

No tool name reads like a consequential action (a purchase, a booking, a payment, a transfer, a deletion), so there is no consequentialHint to expect.

not applicableHint vs. observed

weight 3

not measuredInjection surface

weight 3

The injection-surface model hop returned no usable result, so tool contracts were not reviewed for injection surface.

Tool selection

The tool-selection model hop returned no usable result.

Add the tools this site is missing

Our scanner reads your website and suggests the right WebMCP tools for it.

The open source webmcp plugin teaches your coding agent to audit a site, implement tools on document.modelContext, and verify them in a real browser. npx @ora-ai/webmcp-verify runs the verification on its own. No signup, no hosted service.

how this was captured

observed via: capture shim (Chromium 151.0.7922.34)
chrome: 151.0.7922.34
capture shim: v3
spec snapshot: 2026-10-16
mode: fast
pages: 1 - entry page only
tools: 3
invoked: not invoked; a live audit calls them
run time: 8s
finished: Oct 26, 2026

Checked the way in-browser agents discover tools: the top-level document's modelContext registry, read after the page settles.