nameserver-lookupLook up normalized RDAP data (IP addresses, status, sponsoring registrar) for a nameserver hostname.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| host | Yes | Nameserver hostname, e.g. "ns1.example.com". |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations present, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It does convey that the tool returns 'normalized RDAP data' and lists included fields, which gives some insight into output content. However, it does not mention error conditions, output format, DNS resolution behavior, or any limitations, so transparency is only partial.
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, tightly written sentence that front-loads the action and resource, then adds useful detail about the returned data. Every phrase earns its place with no filler or repetition.
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 simple one-parameter lookup tool, the description covers the core invocation need: what to pass and what kind of data to expect. However, there is no output schema, so the description should more fully explain the return shape or format, and it also lacks any guidance about when this tool is preferable to related lookups. These gaps keep it from being fully complete.
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 100%, so the single 'host' parameter is already well-documented in the schema. The description adds minimal semantic value by reiterating that it applies to a nameserver hostname, but this is largely redundant with the parameter description. Baseline 3 is appropriate because the schema already handles parameter semantics.
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 uses a specific verb ('Look up') and a clear resource ('nameserver hostname'), and further clarifies the scope by listing the returned data categories (IP addresses, status, sponsoring registrar). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like domain-lookup or ip-lookup because the target is explicitly a nameserver, not a domain or IP directly.
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?
The description clearly indicates the intended use case: looking up data for a nameserver hostname. It does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when not to use this tool, but the 'hostname' qualifier provides enough contextual guidance for an agent to select it over sibling tools in most cases.
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 RDAP object type—ASN, domain, batch domain, entity handle, IP, nameserver, or TLD metadata—so an agent can clearly select the right one. The only potential overlap, domain-lookup versus bulk-domain-lookup, is explicitly differentiated as single versus pooled lookup.
Six tools follow a consistent object-lookup pattern with snake_case, making the set predictable. The tlds tool breaks the pattern by using a bare noun instead of something like list-tlds or tld-lookup, but the deviation is minor and still readable.
Seven tools is a well-scoped size for an RDAP-focused API: one tool per primary RDAP object type plus a batch variant and a metadata tool. There is no bloat or redundancy.
The surface covers the core RDAP object classes—IP networks, ASNs, domains, nameservers, and entities—plus useful TLD metadata and batch lookup functionality. As a read-only RDAP service, it has no obvious dead ends or missing critical operations.