whois_lookupLook up domain registration data via RDAP (modern WHOIS). Returns registrar, dates, status, nameservers, DNSSEC, and contact information (registrant, admin, tech, billing - often redacted for privacy). Works for any domain - no ownership required.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| domain | Yes | Domain to look up, e.g. 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 provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. The verb 'look up' implies a read-only operation, and the mention that contact information is 'often redacted for privacy' adds meaningful transparency about expected data limitations. It does not mention rate limits or authentication, but for a simple lookup tool these are less critical.
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 two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, and every phrase adds value—method (RDAP), return fields, privacy redaction, and ownership independence. No wasted words.
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 tool with no output schema, the description is complete: it states what the tool does, what data it returns, cautions about redaction, and clarifies scope (any domain). This gives the agent enough context to select and invoke the tool correctly.
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% (the 'domain' parameter is described as 'Domain to look up, e.g. example.com'), so the baseline is 3. The description adds the context that 'no ownership required' and lists the return fields, which gives slight extra meaning to the domain parameter but does not change the parameter's syntax or constraints.
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 starts with a specific verb+resource+method: 'Look up domain registration data via RDAP (modern WHOIS)'. It clearly lists the types of data returned and explicitly distinguishes itself from domain-management tools by stating 'Works for any domain - no ownership required', which differentiates it from siblings like get_domain_info.
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 gives clear context for when to use the tool: 'Works for any domain - no ownership required' implies it can be used for external/any domain lookups, unlike tools restricted to owned domains. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools or provide when-not-to-use guidance, so it stops short of a 5.
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.
While most tools have distinct purposes, several clusters overlap significantly (e.g., check_email, check_email_deliverability, get_email_deliverability, get_domain_email_status; buy_domain, buy_aftermarket, acquire_domain). The descriptions are detailed and help differentiate, but the sheer number of tools makes it challenging for an agent to select the correct one without careful reading.
The dominant pattern is verb_noun with underscores (e.g., create_mailbox, list_domains), but there are notable inconsistencies: destructive actions mix delete/remove/cancel/revoke/unsell, and a few names deviate entirely (search, dns_check, domain_status). The pattern is recognizable but not uniformly applied.
With 122 tools, this vastly exceeds the 50+ threshold for extreme mismatch. Even for a comprehensive domain and email platform, the tool count is overwhelming and will likely hinder agent performance through excessive choice and context bloat.
The server covers a wide range of domains, DNS, email, marketplace, negotiations, transfers, webhooks, tokens, and billing. Minor gaps exist, such as no update operation for mail rules, no direct domain deletion, and limited mailbox configuration beyond forwarding and credentials, but most lifecycle workflows are supported.