Skip to main content
Glama

DomainKits

by io.github.ABTdomain

RDAP WHOIS Registration Info

whois
Read-onlyIdempotent

Return WHOIS/RDAP registration data for a domain: registrar, dates, status, and nameservers.

Related: dns, safety.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
domainYesDomain name

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
domainYes
statusNoDomain status codes
createdNoRegistration creation date
expiresNoExpiration date
updatedNoLast updated date
registeredYesWhether the domain is currently registered
nameserversNoConfigured nameservers
registrar_nameNoRegistrar name

TDQS

A4/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds value by enumerating the data fields returned (registrar, dates, status, nameservers), providing useful context beyond the annotations.

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, front-loaded with the action and key data fields. The 'Related' line is brief and non-redundant, with no wasted words.

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?

For a single-parameter lookup tool with a strong annotation profile and an output schema, the description adequately covers purpose and data scope. Minor gap is the lack of explicit usage guidance beyond the related-tools hint.

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 the sole parameter 'domain' already described as 'Domain name'. The description adds no additional parameter-level detail, so it does not improve upon the schema's clarity.

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 returns WHOIS/RDAP registration data for a domain, listing specific data elements (registrar, dates, status, nameservers). This distinguishes it from siblings such as dns and safety, which likely handle other aspects.

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 provides only a brief 'Related: dns, safety' line, which hints at related tools but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives. It implies usage for registration data but lacks clear exclusion or selection guidance.

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

All DomainKits 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

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.

Resources