Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In

GetApi.nl -- MCP server

by nl.getapi
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

lookup.dns.nameservers

Read-onlyIdempotent

Nameserver lookup for a domain

Returns the NS records for the given domain. Results are cached for 10 minutes.

Cost: 1 credit(s) per call. An API key is required via the X-Api-Key header (or Authorization: Bearer ); a per-call wallet payment via x402 is also accepted.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "domain": "<domain>"
    },
    "name": "lookup.dns.nameservers"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
domainYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observed

TDQS

A3.7/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnly and idempotent, and the description adds genuinely useful operational context beyond them: 10-minute result caching, a cost of 1 credit per call, and the auth mechanisms (X-Api-Key, Bearer token, or x402 wallet payment). This is exactly the kind of disclosure annotations cannot carry.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Front-loaded with the operation, then the return value, then cost/auth as separate short statements. The opening line largely restates the second sentence, which is minor redundancy, but nothing is bloated.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a single-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description covers what is returned, caching behavior, pricing, and authentication, which is most of what an agent needs. The remaining gap is input format guidance for the domain value.

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 coverage is 0% and the single required 'domain' parameter is typed only as a string. The description refers to 'the given domain' but gives no format guidance, examples, or validation notes (e.g., whether a zone/registrar domain or subdomain is expected), so it does not compensate for the schema gap.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb and resource ('Nameserver lookup', 'Returns the NS records for the given domain'), which clearly sets it apart from generic lookups. It does not explicitly name the closest sibling (lookup.dns.records) to sharpen the boundary, but the NS-record specificity is enough for an agent to distinguish it.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines3/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Usage is only implied: the tool is for retrieving NS records for one domain. There is no statement of when to prefer it over lookup.dns.records or other DNS/validation siblings, and no prerequisites beyond the auth note. Adequate but with a clear routing gap.

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

All GetApi.nl -- MCP server toolsInspect
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.

Resources