WHOIS
Server Details
Query WHOIS/RDAP information for domains, IP addresses, CIDR prefixes and ASNs. Self-hostable.
- Status
- Healthy
- Last Tested
- Transport
- Streamable HTTP
- URL
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.
Tool Definition Quality
Average 3.9/5 across 2 of 2 tools scored.
The tools are clearly distinct: one for single queries and one for batch queries. Descriptions explicitly state their purposes, making it easy for an agent to choose correctly.
Both tools follow a consistent 'whois_' prefix with descriptive suffixes ('lookup', 'batch_lookup'), maintaining a clear and predictable naming pattern.
With only 2 tools, the server is minimal but still covers the core WHOIS lookup functionality. While slightly below the recommended 3-15 range, it avoids unnecessary bloat for a focused domain.
The tool surface covers single and batch lookups for domains, IPs, and ASNs, but lacks advanced features like parsing options or data format control, leaving moderate gaps.
Available Tools
2 toolswhois_batch_lookupAInspect
Query 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 |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It mentions results per query with individual statuses, but lacks details on auth requirements, rate limits, or error handling, which would be useful for a batch operation.
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?
Three sentences efficiently front-load the purpose and key details without redundancy. Every sentence adds value.
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?
With one parameter and no output schema, the description covers the basics but leaves gaps such as maximum query count, formatting details for CIDR, and partial failure behavior. Adequate but not 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 description adds examples of accepted input (e.g., AS12345) but does not significantly expand beyond the schema's parameter description. Baseline score 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 clearly states the tool queries WHOIS/RDAP for multiple domain names, IP addresses, CIDR prefixes, or ASNs in one call, distinguishing it from the single-query sibling 'whois_lookup'.
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?
It notes the tool is disabled unless the operator enables batch queries, providing a clear conditional usage context. It does not explicitly list when not to use, but the sibling tool implies a single-query alternative.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
whois_lookupAInspect
Query 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 |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description bears full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It states the operation is a query (read-only), but does not mention rate limits, authentication requirements, or error behavior for invalid inputs. Given the tool's simplicity, the disclosure is minimal.
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?
A single sentence that is direct and efficient. No extraneous information or repetition.
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?
For a simple tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description provides all necessary context: what it does and what inputs it accepts.
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?
Although schema coverage is 100%, the tool description adds 'CIDR prefix (v4 or v6)' which is not present in the schema's parameter description, thus providing additional value beyond the schema.
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 the verb 'Query' and the resource 'WHOIS/RDAP information', and specifies multiple input types (domain, IP, CIDR, ASN). This distinguishes it from the sibling 'whois_batch_lookup'.
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 implicitly covers usage by listing valid inputs, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus the sibling 'whois_batch_lookup' (e.g., single vs. batch). No when-not-to-use guidance 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.
Discussions
No comments yet. Be the first to start the discussion!