Query WHOIS/RDAP information for domains, IP addresses, CIDR prefixes and ASNs. Self-hostable.
Glama MCP Gateway
Connect through Glama MCP Gateway for full control over tool access and complete visibility into every call.
Full call logging
Every tool call is logged with complete inputs and outputs, so you can debug issues and audit what your agents are doing.
Tool access control
Enable or disable individual tools per connector, so you decide what your agents can and cannot do.
Managed credentials
Glama handles OAuth flows, token storage, and automatic rotation, so credentials never expire on your clients.
Usage analytics
See which tools your agents call, how often, and when, so you can understand usage patterns and catch anomalies.
Average 3.8/5 across 2 of 2 tools scored.
The two tools are clearly distinct: whois_lookup handles single queries, while whois_batch_lookup handles multiple queries in one call. There is no overlap in functionality.
Both tools follow a consistent snake_case pattern with the 'whois_' prefix and a descriptive second word ('lookup' vs 'batch_lookup'), making the naming predictable and clear.
With only 2 tools, the server is quite minimal but still covers the core WHOIS lookup functionality. It is on the low end of the acceptable range for a focused utility server.
The server covers all major WHOIS query types (domains, IPs, CIDRs, ASNs) with both single and batch modes. Minor gaps like raw WHOIS or parsing are not present but are not essential for basic lookups.
whois_batch_lookupAInspectQuery WHOIS/RDAP information for multiple domain names, IP addresses/CIDR prefixes, or ASNs in one call. Results are returned per query with individual statuses. Disabled unless the operator enables batch queries.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| queries | Yes | Domain names, IP addresses (v4/v6), or ASNs (e.g. AS12345) to look up |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Without annotations, the description provides basic behavioral context: per-query results with individual statuses and a disabled-by-default condition. However, it lacks details on read-only nature, rate limits, or potential side effects.
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 concise sentences cover purpose, scope, and result format without superfluous content, and the front-loaded structure aids quick comprehension.
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 description covers core functionality and result format, but omits constraints like maximum batch size or error handling, which would be helpful for a batch tool.
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?
The parameter 'queries' is fully described in the schema (100% coverage), so the description adds little semantic value beyond confirming it accepts multiple entity types.
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 that the tool queries WHOIS/RDAP information for multiple domains, IPs, or ASNs in one call, distinguishing it from the sibling tool 'whois_lookup' which likely handles single queries.
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 implies use for batch queries with 'in one call' and mentions it is disabled unless enabled, but does not explicitly specify when to use the singular alternative, leaving some ambiguity.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
whois_lookupAInspectQuery WHOIS/RDAP information for a domain name, IP address or CIDR prefix (v4 or v6), or ASN
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| query | Yes | Domain name, IP address (v4/v6), or ASN (e.g. AS12345) to look up |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It only states what is queried but does not mention side effects, rate limits, error handling, or response format. Minimal behavioral context is given.
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?
The description is a single, well-structured sentence that efficiently conveys the tool's purpose and supported input types without any superfluous text.
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?
Given the simple schema (one parameter) and lack of output schema, the description provides basic clarity but omits expected return format or structure. This is adequate for a straightforward lookup but not fully complete.
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%, and the parameter description in the schema already documents the accepted input types. The tool description adds no additional details beyond the schema, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.
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 ('Query') and resource ('WHOIS/RDAP information') and clearly states the supported input types (domain, IP, CIDR, ASN). It distinguishes itself from the sibling tool 'whois_batch_lookup' by implying a single-query scope.
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 does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus the sibling 'whois_batch_lookup'. While the single vs. batch distinction is implied, no direct guidance on prerequisites, limitations, or alternatives is provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Claim this connector by publishing a /.well-known/glama.json file on your server's domain with the following structure:
{
"$schema": "https://glama.ai/mcp/schemas/connector.json",
"maintainers": [{ "email": "your-email@example.com" }]
}The email address must match the email associated with your Glama account. Once published, Glama will automatically detect and verify the file within a few minutes.
Control your server's listing on Glama, including description and metadata
Access analytics and receive server usage reports
Get monitoring and health status updates for your server
Feature your server to boost visibility and reach more users
For users:
Full audit trail – every tool call is logged with inputs and outputs for compliance and debugging
Granular tool control – enable or disable individual tools per connector to limit what your AI agents can do
Centralized credential management – store and rotate API keys and OAuth tokens in one place
Change alerts – get notified when a connector changes its schema, adds or removes tools, or updates tool definitions, so nothing breaks silently
For server owners:
Proven adoption – public usage metrics on your listing show real-world traction and build trust with prospective users
Tool-level analytics – see which tools are being used most, helping you prioritize development and documentation
Direct user feedback – users can report issues and suggest improvements through the listing, giving you a channel you would not have otherwise
The connector status is unhealthy when Glama is unable to successfully connect to the server. This can happen for several reasons:
The server is experiencing an outage
The URL of the server is wrong
Credentials required to access the server are missing or invalid
If you are the owner of this MCP connector and would like to make modifications to the listing, including providing test credentials for accessing the server, please contact support@glama.ai.
No comments yet. Be the first to start the discussion!
Sign in to create a connector for this server.