Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
whoismd-mcp-server

whoismd-mcp-server

by Usama015
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Local

whoismd_bulk

Analyze up to 100 domains at once for WHOIS, DNS, and threat risk scores. Run concurrent batch domain intelligence lookups and get per-domain success results.

Instructions

Run batch domain intelligence lookups for up to 100 distinct domains via the public WhoisMD API. Each entry is analyzed concurrently with bounded parallelism. Returns per-domain success/failure results with risk scores.

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": {
      "domains": "<domains>"
    },
    "name": "whoismd_bulk"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
domainsYesArray of domain names to analyze in batch

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv1.0.0

TDQS

A4/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses concurrent analysis with bounded parallelism and per-domain success/failure results, but omits auth requirements, rate limits, error handling, and whether failed domains can be retried independently.

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 tight sentences, front-loaded with purpose, then execution behavior, then return shape. No filler or repetition.

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 batch lookup with no output schema, the description covers the core operation, concurrency model, and return format including risk scores. It is nearly complete, though it could clarify risk-score semantics and any public API limits.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100%, so the schema already defines the domains array. The description still adds semantic value by specifying 'distinct' domains and reinforcing the 100-item cap, which the schema's maxItems states but the schema description does not call out as a uniqueness requirement.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: batch domain intelligence lookups, scoped to up to 100 distinct domains via the public WhoisMD API. The word 'batch' and the limit clearly distinguish it from the single-domain sibling whoismd_lookup.

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?

The batch context and 100-domain limit imply this tool is for multiple domains rather than single lookups, but it never explicitly says when to prefer it over whoismd_lookup or when not to use it. Usage is inferable but not stated.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools