A
license-
qualityF
maintenanceCheck domain name availability via RDAP. Single lookups, bulk checks (up to 50), and smart name suggestions with registration links. No API key needed.
Last updated
MIT
Domain RDAP MCP
Server Details
Free, keyless domain registration lookup via RDAP: registered, available, registrar, expiration.
- 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.
MCP client
Glama
MCP server
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.
100% free. Your data is private.
Tool Definition Quality
A4.6/5.0
Tool DescriptionsA
Average 4.7/5 across 1 of 1 tools scored.
Server CoherenceA
Disambiguation5/5
Only one tool exists, so there is no possibility of confusion. The tool's description clearly defines its purpose and input requirements.
Naming Consistency5/5
The single tool name 'check_domain' follows a clear verb_noun pattern, which is consistent and descriptive.
Tool Count3/5
With only one tool, the server feels thin for a RDAP service, though the tool covers a coherent domain-checking use case.
Completeness5/5
The tool covers the main domain registration queries (registered status, registrar, expiration) and returns clear errors for malformed input, so it is complete for its narrow scope.
Available Tools
1 toolcheck_domainARead-onlyInspect
Check whether a domain name is registered, using real-time RDAP data (the IETF-standardized successor to WHOIS). Use for "is domain-x.com available/registered", "who is domain-x.com registered with", or "when does domain-x.com expire" style questions.
domain is a bare domain like "example.com" -- no protocol prefix, no
path, no spaces.
If the domain is NOT registered, returns {"domain": ..., "registered": false} -- this is a normal, meaningful answer (the domain is
available), not an error.
If the domain IS registered, returns {"domain", "registered": true, "status", "registered_date", "expiration_date", "last_changed_date", "registrar"}. status is a list of RDAP status codes (e.g. "active",
"client transfer prohibited"). Dates are ISO 8601. registrar is the
registrar's name, or null if the registry redacts it for privacy.
For obviously malformed input (not a domain -- e.g. missing a dot, has
spaces, or includes a protocol like "https://"), returns a clean
{"error": ...} instead of calling the API.
ParametersJSON Schema
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| domain | Yes |
Output Schema
ParametersJSON Schema
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
No output parameters | ||
Tool Definition Quality
A4.7/5.0
Behavior5/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Beyond the readOnlyHint annotation, the description extensively discloses behavior: it explains the difference between registered and unregistered responses, output fields, date formats, registrar redaction, and clean error handling for malformed input. This goes far beyond what annotations provide.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is well-structured and front-loaded with the core purpose. It is somewhat lengthy but every sentence adds essential details (output formats, error cases). It earns a 4 because it is not as concise as possible, though nothing is wasted.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's moderate complexity, the description covers all relevant aspects: purpose, input format, output schemas for both registered and unregistered cases, and error handling. Even though an output schema exists, the description provides valuable context around the response meanings and edge cases, making it complete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
With 0% schema description coverage, the description fully compensates by specifying exactly what 'domain' should be: 'a bare domain like example.com -- no protocol prefix, no path, no spaces.' This fully clarifies the single parameter.
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's purpose: 'Check whether a domain name is registered, using real-time RDAP data'. It also specifies exact question types it answers ('is domain-x.com available/registered', 'who is domain-x.com registered with', 'when does domain-x.com expire'), making the purpose highly specific and unambiguous.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides explicit use-case examples ('Use for ... style questions'), which gives clear contextual guidance. However, it does not mention alternatives or when-not-to-use scenarios (beyond malformed input), so it lacks explicit exclusions that would merit a 5.
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!
Related MCP Servers
- Alicense-qualityCmaintenanceEnables RDAP domain lookup via ICANN standard, free, no authentication required.Last updated18MIT
- AlicenseAqualityDmaintenanceEnables domain lookups using the RDAP protocol, returning structured registration data, nameservers, and contacts from over 50 supported TLDs.Last updated1101MIT
- AlicenseAqualityDmaintenanceProvides comprehensive domain research tools including RDAP, WHOIS, and DNS lookup capabilities, with automatic fallback and support for 50+ TLDs.Last updated161MIT