domain-checker-mcp
Server Configuration
Describes the environment variables required to run the server.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Instructions
Guidance the server publishes about itself, which clients place ahead of the tool catalog so the model reads it before choosing anything.
This server publishes no instructions, or was last inspected before Glama recorded them.
Capabilities
Features and capabilities supported by this server
Protocol revision2025-11-25
| Capability | Details |
|---|---|
| tools | {
"listChanged": true
} |
Tools
Functions exposed to the LLM to take actions
| Name | Description |
|---|---|
| check_domainsB | Check if domains are available for registration. Uses DNS + RDAP/WHOIS for accuracy. |
| check_namesC | Check base names across popular TLDs (e.g., ['myproject'] checks myproject.com, .io, .net, etc.) |
| check_domains_quickA | Quick DNS-only check without RDAP/WHOIS verification. Fast but may have false positives for 'available'. |
Prompts
Interactive templates invoked by user choice
| Name | Description |
|---|---|
No prompts | |
Resources
Contextual data attached and managed by the client
| Name | Description |
|---|---|
No resources | |
TDQS
Scored across 3 tools
check_domains and check_domains_quick are closely related but clearly differentiated by accuracy/speed, while check_names serves a distinct purpose by expanding a base name across TLDs. No two tools are truly ambiguous, though the overlap between the two domain checks is notable.
All tool names follow a consistent 'check_' prefix with clear object descriptors. The variation 'check_domains_quick' is a natural modifier of the core check_domains operation, maintaining a predictable pattern.
With only 3 tools, the set is tightly scoped for a domain checker. Each tool serves a distinct need (thorough, quick, and name-based checking), and the count feels appropriate rather than thin or bloated.
The tool set covers the core domain availability checking use case well, including both accurate and fast variants. A minor gap is the lack of a way to specify custom TLD lists for name-based checks, but this is a workaround and not a critical omission.