Skip to main content
Glama

Name.ai MCP Server

by ai.name

whois_lookup

Read-onlyIdempotent

Look up WHOIS/RDAP registration details for a domain: registrar, registrant, creation/expiration dates, nameservers.

Backed by POST /api/tools/whois — public, no auth required, but rate
limited by name.ai to 10 lookups per day per caller IP. Since every MCP
call shares this server's egress IP, that quota is pooled across all of
this MCP server's callers, not per end user.

Args:
    domain: A domain name to look up, e.g. "example.com".

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
domainYes

TDQS

A4.7/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Beyond the annotations (readOnly, idempotent, openWorld), the description reveals critical behavior: the rate limit and the fact that the shared egress IP pools the quota across all MCP callers. It also notes the backend HTTP method and public access, which are not captured by annotations.

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 compact and well-organized: purpose first, then backend/rate-limit context, then the parameter definition. Every sentence carries useful information with no padding.

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 read-only lookup with one parameter, the description covers the main need: what data is returned and the important rate-limit behavior. It doesn't describe error cases or exact return formatting, but the absence of an output schema is partially mitigated by listing the returned fields.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters5/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

With schema description coverage at 0%, the description's Args section fully compensates by defining 'domain' as 'a domain name to look up' and providing the example 'example.com'. This tells the agent exactly what input format is expected.

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

Purpose5/5

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

The description opens with a clear verb and object: 'Look up WHOIS/RDAP registration details for a domain' and enumerates the specific data returned (registrar, registrant, dates, nameservers). This distinguishes it from siblings like tld_registration_price and tld_requirements, which have different purposes.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description states that the endpoint is public, requires no auth, and is rate-limited to 10 lookups per caller IP per day, with the pooled-quota caveat. This gives clear operational context, though it never explicitly names alternatives or says when not to use this tool versus a sibling.

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

All Name.ai MCP Server toolsInspect
Try in Browser
RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

A4.5/5.0
Disambiguation5/5

Each tool targets a distinct concern: availability/alternates, TLD pricing, TLD policy requirements, and WHOIS details. There is no overlap or ambiguous boundary between them.

Naming Consistency4/5

All names are snake_case and descriptive, but conventions are mixed: search_domain is verb_noun, whois_lookup is noun_verb, and the two tld_* tools are noun phrases. The tld_ prefix provides cohesion, making the set predictable despite the lack of a single uniform pattern.

Tool Count5/5

Four tools is well-scoped for a domain-information server. Each tool contributes a necessary capability without redundancy or bloat.

Completeness4/5

The surface covers the core domain-research lifecycle: availability, pricing, registry requirements, and existing registration details. A minor gap is the lack of any purchase/registration action, but the server appears intentionally informational rather than transactional.

Resources