Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Whoisfreaks

Whoisfreaks

by WhoisFreaks
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Hybrid

Bulk domain availability check

bulkDomainAvailability
Read-onlyIdempotent

Check availability for up to 100 domain names or one name across up to 100 TLDs in one request. Compare .com, .io, .ai and other extensions before registering.

Instructions

Check whether many domain names can be registered, in one request: either up to 100 full domain names, or one name across up to 100 extensions (TLDs). Use this to pick an available name across extensions such as .com, .io and .ai (pass domain and tlds), or to check a list of candidate names (pass domainNames). For one name, or for name ideas, use domainAvailability with suggestions=true. Uses API credits for each domain checked. An invalid name returns its own error entry while the other names still return results. Returns each domain with its availability: AVAILABLE, UNAVAILABLE or UNKNOWN. Availability can change at any moment, and this check does not reserve anything. Behavior: read-only. Makes one request to the WhoisFreaks API using your WhoisFreaks API key (the WHOISFREAKS_API_KEY environment variable, or on the hosted server the key sent with the request) and uses that account's API credits; nothing is created or changed. If the call fails, the result is a short message instead of data, for example: key invalid, or plan or credits used up (HTTP 401), domain extension not supported (HTTP 403), no data found (HTTP 404), or rate limit reached (HTTP 429).

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "bulkDomainAvailability"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
tldsNoExtensions (TLDs) to check the domain against, without the leading dot, at most 100. Example: ["io", "dev", "ai"]
domainNoThe name to check across the extensions in tlds. Example: whoisfreaks.com. Use together with tlds.
formatNoResponse format. Default: json
domainNamesNoFull domain names to check, at most 100. Example: ["whoisfreaks.io", "jfreaks.pk"]. Leave out when you pass domain and tlds.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Addedv2.1.0

TDQS

A4.6/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Beyond the annotations (readOnly, idempotent, openWorld, non-destructive), it discloses credit consumption per domain checked, the per-entry error behavior for invalid names, the enum of possible availability values, that nothing is reserved, and a mapping of HTTP 401/403/404/429 to human-readable failure modes with the API key source named. The only near-redundancy is repeating that nothing is created or changed, which readOnlyHint already covers.

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?

The core behavior and the use-this-vs-that guidance are front-loaded in the first two paragraphs, which is the right order. It runs somewhat long, with the error-code enumeration and the 'nothing is created or changed' clause adding bulk that partly duplicates annotations.

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

Completeness5/5

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

There is no output schema, and the description compensates by naming the returned statuses (AVAILABLE, UNAVAILABLE, UNKNOWN) and the partial-failure shape. Nothing an agent needs in order to call this correctly — request shape, cost, key requirement, failure semantics — is missing.

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 baseline is 3, but the description adds the crucial XOR framing that the schema leaves implicit: with zero required parameters, an agent could otherwise pass both shapes or neither, and the description makes clear it is 'either' full names 'or' domain + tlds. The per-parameter details (max 100, no leading dot) are already in the schema, so no extra credit there.

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?

The opening sentence names a specific verb and resource ('check whether many domain names can be registered, in one request') and immediately states the two supported shapes: up to 100 full names, or one name across up to 100 TLDs. It explicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling domainAvailability, so an agent can route without opening either schema.

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

Usage Guidelines5/5

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

It gives concrete routing rules: pass domain + tlds to test one name across extensions, pass domainNames to check a list of candidates, and use domainAvailability with suggestions=true for a single name or name ideas. Both the when-to-use and the when-to-use-something-else cases are spelled out.

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