A
licenseA
qualityC
maintenanceDomain intelligence for DNS, WHOIS/RDAP, SSL/TLS, subdomain discovery, availability, valuation, email security, and typosquatting and brand protection.
1
1
MIT
domain-intelligence
Server Details
Domain overviews for security and sales: registration, infrastructure, and risk signals.
If you are the author of this connector, you can claim ownership with GitHub, an HTTP challenge, or a DNS record. Claimed connector authors can inspect health checks, view analytics, and manage their listing.
- Status
- Healthy
- Last Tested
- Transport
- Streamable HTTP · MCP 2025-11-25
- URL
- Repository
- DataLeadsPRO/domain-intelligence
- GitHub Stars
- 0
- Server Listing
- domain-intelligence
TDQS
D1.7/5.0
Scored across 1 tool
Disambiguation5/5
With only one tool, there is no possibility of confusion between tools. The single tool's purpose is unambiguous.
Naming Consistency4/5
There is no pattern to break since only one tool exists. The name 'domain_overview' is a noun phrase rather than a verb_noun action, but it is internally consistent.
Tool Count2/5
A single tool feels far too thin for a server named 'domain-intelligence', which implies a broader range of domain-related operations. This falls into the 'too few' category.
Completeness1/5
The tool surface is severely incomplete for a domain-intelligence server. Only an overview is provided, with no tools for querying, analyzing, updating, or managing domain data.
Available Tools
1 tooldomain_overviewDInspect
V1 Domain Overview
ParametersJSON Schema
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| url | No | ||
| maxTimeout | No |
TDQS
D1.1/5.0
Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
There are no annotations and the description discloses no behavioral traits whatsoever. An agent cannot tell whether this is a read operation, whether it performs network requests, what 'overview' returns, or what side effects occur.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness2/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The text is short, but this is under-specification rather than conciseness. 'V1 Domain Overview' has no substantive content, so brevity provides no value.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
With two parameters, no output schema, no annotations, and sibling tools that could overlap in purpose, this description is completely inadequate. An agent cannot reliably know what inputs mean, what output to expect, or what this tool uniquely accomplishes.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0% and the description adds no meaning to the url or maxTimeout parameters. The agent only has the property names to infer intent, which is insufficient for correct invocation.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose1/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'V1 Domain Overview' merely restates the tool name with a version prefix; it contains no verb, no resource, and no actual behavior. It does nothing to distinguish domain_overview from its sibling tools seo_audit or seo_content.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines1/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided about when to use this tool, what scenario it addresses, or how it differs from seo_audit and seo_content. The description is entirely silent on selection criteria.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Tool Schema Changelog
Recent tool additions, removals, and schema changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
1 tool update
- First observed
domain_overview
Related MCP Connectors
Domain intelligence for DNS, WHOIS/RDAP, TLS, reputation, valuation, and brand protection.
Domain intel for AI agents: RDAP registration, DNS, email deliverability, tech stack.
Domain intel for AI agents: RDAP registration, DNS, email deliverability, tech stack.
Domain & brand intelligence: company enrichment, tech stack detection, brand research.
Related MCP Servers
- FlicenseNot gradedqualityDmaintenanceEnables domain intelligence lookups including RDAP registration data, DNS records, and Certificate Transparency searches.1-
- AlicenseAqualityFmaintenanceProvides comprehensive domain research tools including RDAP, WHOIS, and DNS lookup capabilities, with automatic fallback and support for 50+ TLDs.110 npm1MIT
- AlicenseNot gradedqualityDmaintenanceProvides comprehensive IP and domain security intelligence, enabling analysis of IP addresses and domains for threat and reputation information.MIT
Try in Browser
One endpoint for every MCP toolRayrun runs every MCP server behind one URL and holds the credentials. Each call is decided per client, tool, and argument, then recorded.ray.runAd
Glama MCP Gateway
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.