Skip to main content
Glama

ContrastAPI

by com.contrastcyber

WHOIS Lookup

whois_lookup
Read-onlyIdempotent

Retrieve WHOIS registration data: registrar, creation/expiry dates, nameservers, status. Use to verify domain ownership, age, expiration; for full audit use domain_report. Free: 30/hr, Pro: 500/hr. Returns {domain, whois: {registrar, creation_date, expiry_date, updated_date, name_servers, status, raw_length, error}, summary}.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
domainYesRoot domain to query WHOIS for (e.g. 'example.com', 'github.com')

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
resultYes

TDQS

A4.7/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

The description supplements the read-only annotations by detailing the return structure ({domain, whois, summary}) and operational limits (rate limits). No contradictions with annotations; it adds valuable context beyond the structured metadata.

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 information-dense: it opens with the primary action, lists key fields, provides a use case, gives a pointer to an alternative, and includes return format and rate limits—all in a few sentences without redundancy.

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

Completeness5/5

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

Given the tool's simple single-parameter interface, the description is fully self-contained: it states purpose, use cases, return structure, and rate limits, leaving no significant gaps for an agent to interpret.

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?

The input schema already describes the 'domain' parameter with 100% coverage, including format and examples. The description adds no further parameter semantics, so the baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 clearly states the tool's function ('Retrieve WHOIS registration data') and lists the specific data fields returned. It also distinguishes itself from the sibling tool domain_report by noting that a full audit should use that alternative.

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

Usage Guidelines5/5

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

Explicitly states when to use this tool ('verify domain ownership, age, expiration') and points to domain_report as the alternative for comprehensive audits. Also discloses rate limit constraints (Free: 30/hr, Pro: 500/hr), which is practical usage guidance.

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

All ContrastAPI 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
Disambiguation4/5

Most tools have clearly distinct purposes, with differences between lookup/search/scan/audit for each domain. However, some overlap exists (e.g., email_mx vs email_security_posture, scan_headers vs contrast_scan) which could cause occasional confusion. Overall, boundaries are well-defined.

Naming Consistency5/5

Tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern (e.g., cve_lookup, check_headers, bulk_cve_lookup) with all lowercase underscores. Variations like kev_detail or ssl_check are minor and still predictable. No chaotic mixing of conventions.

Tool Count4/5

54 tools is high but justified by the broad cybersecurity scope (CVE, ATLAS, D3FEND, Sigma, domain, email, IOC, scanning). Some redundancy exists (e.g., three email-related tools), but the count is not excessive given the API's comprehensive feature set.

Completeness5/5

The tool set thoroughly covers the threat intelligence and domain investigation lifecycle: CVE/KEV/exploit/CWE, ATLAS/D3FEND/Sigma, DNS/WHOIS/SSL/subdomains, email security, IOC enrichment, and active scanning. No significant gaps are apparent for the stated cybersecurity purpose.

Resources