Rdap

Nameserver

nameserver

Read-onlyIdempotent

Nameserver (glue) record from RDAP — the registry's record for a host like "ns1.example.com", with its IP addresses and status. Answers "what are the IPs behind this nameserver" and "is this nameserver registered".

Example tool call

This call uses example arguments supplied in the tool’s input schema.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "host": "ns1.google.com"
    },
    "name": "nameserver"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`base`	No	Optional registry RDAP base URL. Skips IANA bootstrap lookup — use it when a TLD comes back as tld_not_in_iana_bootstrap.
`host`	Yes	Nameserver hostname, e.g. "ns1.google.com".

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed2 schema fields changedAug 30, 2026

addedInput schema / properties / base

Added value: +{
+  "description": "Optional registry RDAP base URL. Skips IANA bootstrap lookup — use it when a TLD comes back as tld_not_in_iana_bootstrap.",
+  "type": "string"
+}

addedInput schema / properties / host / description

Added value: +"Nameserver hostname, e.g. \"ns1.google.com\"."

Changed2 schema fields changedMay 22, 2026

addedInput schema / examples

Added value: +[
+  {
+    "host": "ns1.google.com"
+  },
+  {
+    "host": "a.ns.apple.com"
+  }
+]

changedOutput schema / (root)

Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+  "description": "RDAP nameserver record",
+  "type": "object"
+}

First observedMay 20, 2026

TDQS

A4.3/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds context beyond those: it specifies the RDAP source, the fact that this is a registry record, and that it includes IP addresses and status. It does not contradict annotations.

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?

Three sentences with no filler. The definition is front-loaded, the content is scannable, and the two example question formats quickly communicate what the tool is for.

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?

This is a simple single-resource lookup with strong annotations, a complete input schema, and an output schema present. The description fully communicates what the tool does and why an agent would call it, leaving no critical gap.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents 'host' and 'base' well. The tool description adds no parameter-level detail and does not need to, given how thorough the schema descriptions are.

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 ('Nameserver (glue) record'), a data source ('RDAP'), and concrete examples like 'ns1.example.com'. It clearly distinguishes itself from siblings like domain or ip by focusing on a nameserver host and its IP addresses/status.

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 clear user-facing use cases: 'what are the IPs behind this nameserver' and 'is this nameserver registered'. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the usage context is unmistakable for this lookup tool.

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

All Rdap 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.