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) |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description bears full burden. It details the returned data and mentions the data source (RDAP), but does not disclose limitations such as behavior on nonexistent domains, rate limits, or data freshness.
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?
Two sentences with no redundant words. The first sentence defines the tool's purpose and outputs; the second lists use cases. Information is front-loaded and every sentence adds value.
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 tool with one required parameter, no output schema, and no annotations, the description covers the core functionality and typical use cases. It could be improved by briefly noting error handling (e.g., if RDAP lookup fails) or data source reliability, but the current level is sufficient.
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?
Schema coverage is 100% (the 'domain' parameter is well described). The description provides an example ('e.g. stripe.com (no scheme)') which reinforces the schema but adds no additional semantic value beyond what the schema already conveys.
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 states it returns 'registration intelligence via RDAP' and lists specific data fields (registrar, dates, EPP codes, etc.). It distinguishes from sibling tools by focusing on registration data rather than DNS or technical stack, but does not explicitly name alternatives.
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?
It provides usage context ('vet a company, assess a lead, judge how established a domain is') but lacks explicit guidance on when not to use it or how it compares to siblings like 'domain_report' or 'dns_lookup'.
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 aspect of domain intelligence: DNS records, registration, combined report, email authentication, subdomains, and tech stack. There is no overlap; even the domain_report is a composite that doesn't conflict with individual tools.
All names use snake_case and are descriptive, but the pattern varies: some are noun_verb (dns_lookup), noun_noun (domain_intel, domain_report, email_deliverability, tech_stack), or single noun (subdomains). This is mostly consistent but not perfectly uniform.
Six tools is an ideal scope for a domain intelligence server. Each tool adds unique value without redundancy, covering registration, DNS, email, subdomains, tech stack, plus a combined report.
The tool set provides comprehensive coverage of domain intelligence: registration details, DNS records, subdomain discovery, email deliverability, and website technology fingerprinting. No obvious missing capabilities for typical lead qualification or research workflows.