Skip to main content
Glama

Rdap

by io.github.pipeworx-io

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".

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
baseNoOptional registry RDAP base URL. Skips IANA bootstrap lookup — use it when a TLD comes back as tld_not_in_iana_bootstrap.
hostYesNameserver hostname, e.g. "ns1.google.com".

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Schema Changelog

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

  1. Changed2 schema fields changed
    • 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\"."
  2. Changed2 schema fields changed
    • 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"
+}
  3. First observed

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 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

B3.1/5.0
Disambiguation2/5

The RDAP tools (domain, ip, asn, nameserver, entity) are distinct, but the larger Pipeworx collection creates significant overlap: ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_beta, and ask_pipeworx_grounded are near-duplicates, and the polymarket_* family (edges, arbitrage, edge_tracker, fill_risk, kalshi_spread) has heavily overlapping purposes. ai_visibility_check and scan_competitor_ai_presence also overlap.

Naming Consistency3/5

Most tools use snake_case with a descriptive verb_noun pattern (e.g., ask_pipeworx, discover_tools, recent_changes), but the set mixes short single nouns (domain, ip, asn, entity) with compound names, and there are oddities like generate_llms_txt and ask_pipeworx_grounded that deviate from a clear uniform convention.

Tool Count2/5

At 36 tools, the server is far heavier than expected for an RDAP service. The RDAP core only needs ~5 tools; the rest are an unrelated Pipeworx mega-suite (data queries, prediction markets, memory, subscriptions, feedback) that makes the server feel like a dumping ground rather than a focused toolset.

Completeness4/5

For the RDAP portion, coverage is complete: domain, IP, ASN, nameserver, and entity records are all present. The broader Pipeworx features also cover their own workflows (query, research, comparison, memory CRUD, subscription lifecycle), but the server's stated RDAP identity is muddied by these extras, and some integration points (e.g., no direct update for RDAP data, which is read-only anyway) are inherent limitations.

Resources