Domain WHOIS and DNS lookup. Registrar, creation and expiry dates, nameservers, and full DNS records (A, AAAA, MX, NS, TXT, CNAME) for a domain. [$0.02/call]. Params — domain: string Example params: {'domain': 'example.com'}
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| params | No |
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, the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions the $0.02/call cost but omits potential side effects, rate limits, auth requirements, or behavior for invalid/nonexistent domains. No contradictions with annotations exist, but the transparency is incomplete.
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 concise and well-structured. It front-loads the core purpose, lists the returned data in a clear sequence, and includes cost and parameter details without redundant fluff. Every sentence contributes useful information.
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 lookup tool, the description covers the essential aspects: what it does, what data it returns, the input parameter, and cost. It does not describe the return format, error handling, or data freshness, but these are less critical given the tool's simplicity.
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?
The schema provides no concrete parameter definitions, so the description is the sole source of parameter meaning. It explicitly names the parameter 'domain', specifies its type as string, and provides an example ('example.com'). It does not clarify whether the parameter is required or the exact format, but it is sufficient for basic usage.
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 clearly states the tool performs a 'Domain WHOIS and DNS lookup' and lists the specific data returned (registrar, dates, nameservers, DNS record types). This differentiates it from sibling tools without ambiguity.
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?
No explicit guidance on when to use this tool over alternatives. For example, it does not contrast with 'dns_propagation' or other domain-related tools, leaving the agent to infer selection criteria. The example param is helpful but does not address use-case selection.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.