get_domain_infoUse this when the user wants WHOIS or registration information about a specific domain — such as who owns it, when it was registered, when it expires, or what nameservers it uses.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| domain | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already mark the operation as read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds useful behavioral context by specifying what kind of data the call returns (WHOIS/registration details, owner, expiry, nameservers). It does not discuss potential edge cases like data redaction or rate limits, but the annotation coverage lowers the burden.
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 sentence that front-loads the usage trigger, gives concrete examples, and contains no filler or redundant content. It is compact and immediately useful.
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 one-parameter read-only lookup, the description covers the core purpose and likely return content well. However, it omits any mention of output shape and does not address how this tool relates to its siblings, which leaves slight room for ambiguity in more complex workflows.
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 input schema has no parameter description (0% coverage), and the description only says 'a specific domain' without clarifying the expected format—e.g., whether it should be 'example.com', include protocol, or support IDN/punycode. The agent is left to infer valid input from the parameter name alone.
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 opens with 'Use this when the user wants WHOIS or registration information about a specific domain' and enumerates concrete examples like ownership, registration date, expiry, and nameservers. This makes the action and resource clear and distinguishes it from sibling tools like check_domains, which sounds plural/batch-oriented.
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 explicitly states when to use the tool ('Use this when the user wants WHOIS...'), providing clear context. However, it does not explicitly mention excluded cases or point to alternative sibling tools, so it stops short of full when-not guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Each tool targets a distinct concern: check_domains for availability, get_domain_info for WHOIS/registration details, and check_usage for account quota. There is no overlap between availability and ownership information, so confusion is unlikely.
All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern using lowercase snake_case. check_domains, check_usage, and get_domain_info are uniform in structure, with verbs and nouns clearly indicating the action and target.
With exactly 3 tools, the server is tightly scoped to its purpose of checking domain availability and providing registration info. This is within the well-scoped range and each tool earns its place without redundancy.
The set covers the core domain lookup workflows: availability checking, detailed WHOIS, and user quota. A minor gap is the absence of a domain suggestion or bulk search feature, but for the stated purpose the coverage is largely complete.