DomainKits

Reverse NS Lookup

ns_reverse

Read-onlyIdempotent

Reverse NS lookup: find all gTLD domains hosted on a specific nameserver, filtered by TLD and keyword.

Related: whois, dns.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`ns`	Yes	Target nameserver hostname (e.g., 'ns1.example.com')
`tld`	No	Filter by TLD (e.g., 'com')
`page`	No	Page number for pagination
`sort`	No	Sort order
`keyword`	No	Substring filter within domain names
`max_len`	No	Maximum domain name length (integer)
`min_len`	No	Minimum domain name length (integer)
`no_hyphen`	No	Exclude hyphens
`no_number`	No	Exclude numbers
`pure_alpha`	No	Letters only (strictest quality filter)
`pure_digit`	No	Numbers only

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`data`	No
`page`	No
`error`	No
`total`	No	Number of results on this page
`success`	Yes
`max_page`	No

TDQS

A3.8/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering safety. The description adds that it finds all gTLD domains with filtering, but it does not disclose pagination behavior or other operational details beyond the schema.

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 two concise sentences: a front-loaded purpose statement and a related-tools reference. It contains no fluff and every word contributes value.

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?

The tool has 11 parameters, but the schema documents all of them and an output schema exists. The description captures the core purpose and key filters, making it sufficiently complete for a read-only lookup, though it could mention pagination implications given the 'all' claim.

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?

Schema coverage is 100% with detailed descriptions for all 11 parameters. The description mentions TLD and keyword filters but adds minimal meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline of 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 a specific action—'find all gTLD domains hosted on a specific nameserver'—with scope and filters. It distinguishes itself from related tools by explicitly naming whois and dns as alternatives.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

The description includes 'Related: whois, dns' which hints at alternative tools but does not explicitly state when to use this vs. those. The context implies this is for reverse NS lookups but lacks clear exclusions or decision guidance.

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

All DomainKits tools Inspect

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

A3.5/5.0

Disambiguation3/5

Many domain-search tools (active, aged, expired, deleted, market, nrds, nrds_live) have overlapping boundaries that depend on subtle lifecycle or listing distinctions, and pairs like bulk_tld/tld_check and nrds/nrds_live are easy to confuse. The detailed descriptions and related-tool hints help, but an agent still faces several nearly interchangeable choices.

Naming Consistency4/5

All tool names follow a consistent lowercase_snake_case convention, with no mixing of camelCase or inconsistent verb styles. However, the names use a noun/adjective pattern rather than a clear verb_noun action pattern, and acronyms like nrds, epp_status, and tld_rank make some names less predictable.

Tool Count2/5

32 tools is heavy for a domain toolkit, and several tools are close variants of the same search or check operation, such as active/aged/expired/deleted/market and nrds/nrds_live. The broad domain scope justifies some breadth, but the set would be much more focused with consolidation.

Completeness4/5

The toolset covers the core domain lifecycle well: availability, registration states, WHOIS, DNS, pricing, TLD statistics, safety, backlinks, typosquatting, and monitoring. The main gaps are that strategy can store data but has no retrieval or deletion action, and market pricing is limited to Sedo only.

Reverse NS Lookup

Input Schema

Output Schema

TDQS

Glama MCP Gateway

TDQS

Resources