Registration intelligence for a domain via RDAP (the modern WHOIS). Returns registrar, creation/expiration/last-changed dates, domain age in years, EPP status codes, nameservers, DNSSEC state, and abuse contact. Use to vet a company, assess a lead, or judge how established a domain is.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| domain | Yes | Domain name, e.g. stripe.com (no scheme) |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does state the data source (RDAP), lists the output fields, and notes the computed 'domain age in years,' making the read-only nature apparent. However, it does not mention potential data incompleteness, rate limits, or network dependency, which are relevant caveats for a live registration lookup.
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 composed of three targeted sentences: purpose, return values, and use cases. Each sentence delivers distinct value with no filler or redundancy, and the core purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence.
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 one-parameter tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the purpose, input expectations, return contents, and usage scenarios. It does not detail output formatting or error behavior, but these are less critical for a read-only lookup with an enumerated output list. The slight gap around data-availability caveats keeps it from a perfect score.
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 documents the single 'domain' parameter with an example and the constraint '(no scheme)', achieving 100% schema description coverage. The description does not add further parameter-specific semantics beyond what is in the schema, so the baseline score of 3 applies.
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 clearly identifies the tool as providing 'Registration intelligence for a domain via RDAP' and enumerates the specific return data: registrar, dates, domain age, EPP codes, nameservers, DNSSEC state, and abuse contact. This specific verb-resource pairing distinguishes it from sibling tools like dns_lookup, subdomains, or tech_stack.
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 provides explicit use cases: 'vet a company, assess a lead, or judge how established a domain is.' These give an agent clear guidance on when to call the tool. It does not explicitly exclude or compare against sibling tools, but the use-case framing is strong enough to make the intended context clear.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Each tool targets a distinct intelligence area—DNS, registration, email, subdomains, tech stack—so the set is largely unambiguous. The composite domain_report intentionally overlaps with several other tools, which creates minor selection ambiguity, though its description makes the combined-purpose clear.
All tool names follow a consistent pattern: lowercase snake_case noun phrases describing the data or intelligence returned (dns_lookup, domain_intel, domain_report, email_deliverability, subdomains, tech_stack). This is a predictable and uniform convention.
Six tools is well-scoped for a domain and company intelligence server. Each tool covers a distinct reconnaissance area, and the composite domain_report justifies its place without bloating the tool surface.
The server covers the main domain-intelligence lifecycle: DNS, registration, subdomains, email authentication, and technology fingerprinting. Minor gaps exist, such as no direct company-name-to-domain lookup and limited DNS record types, but agents can work around these for most lead-qualification and recon workflows.