api_whoisDomain registration data via RDAP: registrar, created/updated/expires, status, nameservers. ?domain=example.com [HTTP x402 price: $0.003]
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| params | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Input schema / properties / params / additionalPropertiesRemoved value: -trueInput schema / properties / params / propertiesAdded value: +{
+ "domain": {
+ "anyOf": [
+ {
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ {
+ "type": "null"
+ }
+ ],
+ "default": null
+ }
+}Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. It discloses that this is a lookup via RDAP and even notes the price, but it does not describe error cases, rate limits, or whether the domain must be bare (e.g., example.com vs www.example.com). The provided information is accurate but incomplete.
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?
One dense sentence covers purpose, protocol, returned fields, invocation syntax, and cost, with no filler. The key information is front-loaded before the usage example.
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 single-parameter lookup with an output schema, the description is mostly complete: it states what data comes back and how to call it. The main gap is lack of usage guidance versus sibling network tools, but the operation is simple enough that this is a minor omission.
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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It adds the crucial query-string usage example (?domain=example.com), which the schema alone does not convey. However, it does not specify accepted domain formats, normalization, or how invalid domains behave.
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 states a specific resource (domain registration data) and the protocol (RDAP), and enumerates the returned fields (registrar, dates, status, nameservers). It is clear enough to distinguish from dns or ip_info, though it lacks an explicit imperative verb like 'retrieve'.
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?
No guidance is given on when to prefer this tool over siblings such as api_dns or api_seo_meta, nor any exclusions or prerequisites. The RDAP mention implies a registry lookup, but the agent must infer when it applies.
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.
Several tools have unclear boundaries: api_search and api_serp_google both return Google results, api_scrape and api_render_text both extract page text, and api_hash_multi overlaps with api_sha256 for SHA-256/SHA-512. While many tools are distinct, these overlapping pairs create real misselection risk.
Every tool follows the same api_<snake_case> pattern with no mixed conventions or casing styles. The prefix makes the server immediately recognizable and the action/resource is consistently readable across all 44 tools.
44 tools is well over the 25+ threshold for a well-scoped set, making the server feel like a grab-bag of unrelated utilities. Even though each tool is small and individually useful, the overall surface is too large and would benefit from consolidation into focused sub-servers.
The set covers many common utility categories—encodings, conversions, text analysis, web scraping, SEO, and trends—but has notable one-way gaps: CSV/YAML/TOML all convert to JSON but not back, and markdown converts to HTML but not the reverse. The broad domain makes full completeness hard to define, so only major reverse-conversion gaps stand out.