Queries the global RDAP bootstrap directory for domain registration details, registrar name, creation date, and expiration timestamp. Matches: domain registration checker, WHOIS lookup tool, check domain owner registry, check website expiry date.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| domain | Yes | Domain name to inspect |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It implies a read-only query operation but does not explicitly state safety, idempotency, or lack of side effects. For a simple lookup, this is adequate but could be more explicit.
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 fluff. First sentence states the action and output; second sentence lists matching use cases. Every word earns its place.
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?
The tool is simple (one parameter, no output schema). The description sufficiently explains what it returns and when to use it. It could mention error handling or output format, but for the complexity level it is complete enough.
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 for the single parameter 'domain' is 100% (description in schema: 'Domain name to inspect'). The description repeats this verbatim, adding no additional meaning beyond the schema. Baseline 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 uses a specific verb ('Queries') and resource ('global RDAP bootstrap directory') and lists the exact data returned (registrar name, creation date, expiration timestamp). It also provides matching use cases, clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like lookupIp or lookupBarcode.
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 includes a 'Matches:' section listing common use cases (e.g., WHOIS lookup, domain registration checker), which gives clear context for when to use this tool. It does not explicitly state when not to use or name alternatives, but the matches list effectively guides selection.
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.
Many tools have overlapping functionality, e.g., auditNetworkHost combines DNS, SSL, and header checks that have dedicated tools (auditDnsSecurity, checkSslExpiry, auditSecurityHeaders). Multiple weather and blockchain tools also overlap in scope, making it difficult for an agent to choose the right tool.
Most tools follow a consistent verb_noun pattern (e.g., getAirQuality, checkDnsPropagation), but a few deviate (agentPreflight, capabilitiesDiff) and some use compound names (depositCoordinationBounty). Overall, the pattern is clear but not perfectly uniform.
With 56 tools, the server is far too large for a coherent MCP surface. The number suggests a collection of many unrelated APIs rather than a focused tool set. A typical well-scoped server has 3-15 tools.
While the tool set covers many domains, each domain has shallow coverage. For example, blockchain tools miss basic transaction sending and contract deployment; weather tools lack forecasts. The 'requestMissingData' endpoint acknowledges gaps, but the current surface is severely incomplete for a general-purpose API.