Whoisfreaks

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

Domain reputation check

domainReputation

Read-onlyIdempotent

Assess a domain's risk with a verdict, trust score, threat-feed matches, DGA and email security signals to triage suspicious domains before blocking them.

Instructions

Assess how risky a domain is, live: a verdict (safe, low_risk, suspicious, malicious or unknown) with its confidence and severity, a trust score with the positive and negative signals behind it, DGA (algorithmically generated name) analysis, matches in threat-intelligence feeds, email security (SPF, DKIM, DMARC and mail servers), and a recommended action. Use this to triage a suspicious domain from an email, a log or a domainDiscovery result before deciding whether to block it. For the domain's owner use liveWhoisLookup, for its certificate sslLookup, and for an IP address ipSecurity. Costs 5 credits. An unknown or unregistered domain still returns an assessment; lookups that failed are listed under errors and only leave out their signals. 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

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": {
      "domainName": "<domainName>"
    },
    "name": "domainReputation"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`domainName`	Yes	Domain to assess. Example: example.com (a URL also works)

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Addedv2.1.0Nov 13, 2026

TDQS

A4.6/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Goes well beyond the annotations: charges 5 credits against a specific WhoisFreaks account keyed by WHOISFREAKS_API_KEY, is a single outbound request with no mutation, and still returns an assessment for unknown/unregistered domains, with partial failures surfaced under an "errors" field. It also maps concrete HTTP failure modes (401 key/plan, 403 unsupported extension, 404 no data, 429 rate limit) to short message responses, which is exactly the pre-call context an agent needs.

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?

Front-loads the verdict-first summary of what is returned, then usage, then sibling routing, then cost and failure behavior – a sensible priority order with no filler sentences. The single long enumeration sentence in the opening is dense but every clause names a distinct output the caller would otherwise not know about.

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 describing the shape of the response (verdict, confidence, severity, trust score, signals, per-area results) plus partial-failure semantics and error messages. For a one-parameter, read-only lookup tool this covers everything an agent needs to call it and interpret the result.

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

Parameters3/5

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

The single parameter is already fully documented in the schema (maxLength 253, example.com, URLs accepted), so the description adds no field-level detail beyond that. The description's framing ('triage a suspicious domain') does clarify the intent of the input, but per the 100%-coverage baseline a 3 is appropriate.

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 ("Assess how risky a domain is, live") and enumerates the concrete outputs: verdict, confidence/severity, trust score with signals, DGA analysis, threat-feed matches, email security, recommended action. This is far more than a restatement of the name and lets an agent distinguish it from domainDiscovery or liveWhoisLookup at a glance.

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?

Gives an explicit use case ("triage a suspicious domain from an email, a log or a domainDiscovery result before deciding whether to block it") and names the correct alternatives for adjacent needs: liveWhoisLookup for the owner, sslLookup for the certificate, ipSecurity for an IP address. Both when-to-use and when-to-use-something-else are covered.

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