SiteCheck Web Intel

Domain registration facts via RDAP: registration, last

security_whois_rdap

Read-only

Domain registration facts via RDAP (IANA bootstrap, then the registry's own server): registration, last change and expiry dates, days left, registrar name, status flags, nameservers and DNSSEC delegation flag. Registrant contact data is usually redacted by registries and is not returned. Price: $0.002 in USDC per successful call, paid with x402 (Base, Solana or Arc); failed calls are not charged.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "domain": "<domain>"
    },
    "name": "security_whois_rdap"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`domain`	Yes	Domain name such as example.com (required)

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`domain`	No
`source`	No
`status`	No
`expires`	No
`registry`	No
`checkedAt`	No
`registrar`	No
`registered`	No
`lastChanged`	No
`nameservers`	No
`daysUntilExpiry`	No
`dnssecDelegationSigned`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedOct 23, 2026

TDQS

A4.2/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Beyond the readOnlyHint/openWorldHint annotations, the description discloses two operationally critical behaviors: registrant contact data is usually redacted and not returned (preventing false-negative conclusions), and each successful call costs $0.002 in USDC via x402 on Base, Solana or Arc, with failed calls not charged. Payment/auth requirements and a data-availability caveat are exactly the kind of context annotations cannot convey.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the purpose and return fields, followed by the redaction caveat and pricing. The field enumeration is long but every item earns its place as a distinct return value; nothing is redundant or padded.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be re-explained, and the description still covers the gaps that matter: what data is excluded (registrant contacts), the resolution path, and the cost model including the no-charge-on-failure rule. For a single-parameter read-only lookup this is 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?

Only one parameter exists with 100% schema description coverage ("Domain name such as example.com (required)"), so the baseline is 3. The description adds only indirect semantics — that the input is a domain that can be resolved through IANA bootstrap and a registry RDAP server — without adding format or normalization guidance beyond the schema.

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 names a specific resource (domain registration facts), the protocol used (RDAP via IANA bootstrap, then the registry's own server), and enumerates exactly what is returned: registration, last change and expiry dates, days left, registrar name, status flags, nameservers, DNSSEC delegation. This is clearly distinguishable from siblings like security_dns_records or security_dnssec_validator.

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 is implied rather than stated: an agent can infer it should call this when it needs registration/expiry/registrar data, and the note that registrant contact data is not returned implicitly steers away from expecting WHOIS contact info. However, it never explicitly says when to choose this over sibling lookups (DNS records, DNSSEC validator, domain typosquatting) or what prerequisites exist.

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

All SiteCheck Web Intel tools Inspect

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.

Resources

Need Help?