Skip to main content
Glama

Vee3

by io.github.Vee3io

domains.rdap

Look up raw RDAP (Registration Data Access Protocol) data for a domain.

Returns registrar entities, domain status codes, registration and expiration events, nameservers, DNSSEC delegation data, RDAP conformance labels, and registry notices.

Cost = 3 tokens.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
domainYesDomain name to look up (for example example.com).

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
eventsNoRegistration, expiration, and last-changed timestamps.
statusNoEPP status codes for the domain.
ldhNameNoDomain name in LDH form.
entitiesNoRegistrar, registrant, and related RDAP entities.
secureDNSNoDNSSEC delegation and DS record data.
nameserversNoAuthoritative nameservers for the domain.
objectClassNameNoRDAP object class (for example domain).

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.

  1. Changed2 schema fields changed
    • removedOutput schema / $defs / DomainsRdapResponseStatusItem
      Removed value: -{
-  "additionalProperties": true,
-  "properties": {
-    "status": {
-      "anyOf": [
-        {
-          "type": "string"
-        },
-        {
-          "type": "null"
-        }
-      ],
-      "default": null,
-      "description": "Single EPP status value.",
-      "title": "Status"
-    }
-  },
-  "title": "DomainsRdapResponseStatusItem",
-  "type": "object"
-}
    • changedOutput schema / properties / status / anyOf
      Previous value: -[
-  {
-    "items": {
-      "$ref": "#/$defs/DomainsRdapResponseStatusItem"
-    },
-    "type": "array"
-  },
-  {
-    "type": "null"
-  }
-]New value: +[
+  {
+    "items": {
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "type": "array"
+  },
+  {
+    "type": "null"
+  }
+]
  2. First observed

TDQS

A3.8/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It discloses the raw/structured nature of the data and the cost (3 tokens), and the verb 'Look up' implies a safe read operation. However, it does not mention potential error behavior, rate limits, or the fact that this is a read-only operation, though it is reasonably implied.

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 compact and front-loaded: the first sentence states the purpose, the second lists return contents, and the third notes cost. Every sentence provides useful information with no filler or redundancy.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (1 parameter, output schema present, no nested objects), the description covers purpose, return data, and cost well. It lacks explicit guidance on tool selection, but the existence of an output schema and the straightforward nature of the lookup make this reasonably complete.

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%, and the schema already fully documents the single 'domain' parameter with a clear example ('example.com'). The description adds no extra parameter-level detail beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 uses a specific verb ('Look up') with a specific resource ('raw RDAP data for a domain'), clearly distinguishing it from siblings like domains.whois or domains.dns_records. The expanded acronym and the detailed list of returned data (registrar entities, status codes, DNSSEC, etc.) precisely define the tool's scope.

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?

Usage context is implied through the phrase 'raw RDAP data' and the enumerated return fields, which suggests this is for protocol-level registry data rather than human-friendly WHOIS or DNS records. However, there is no explicit 'use this when' guidance or mention of alternative tools like domains.whois, leaving the agent to infer when this is preferred.

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

All Vee3 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

A4.1/5.0
Disambiguation5/5

Each tool has a distinct purpose, further clarified by group prefixes and clear descriptions. Within each group, tools perform different operations (e.g., domains.lookup vs. domains.whois vs. domains.rdap) with no ambiguity.

Naming Consistency5/5

All tools follow a consistent group.tool_name pattern using snake_case. The naming is predictable and uniformly applied across all groups.

Tool Count4/5

78 tools is high, but the server aggregates multiple distinct API domains (11 groups). Each group has a reasonable number of tools, typically under 10, with TikTok having 17. The count reflects breadth, not bloat.

Completeness5/5

Each domain's tool set covers the primary expected operations (e.g., search, details, reviews, metrics, user info). There are no obvious gaps for read-only analytical use; features like posting are likely out of scope.

Resources