Skip to main content
Glama
bharathvaj-ganesan

Whois MCP

whois_ip

Retrieve WHOIS information for an IP address to identify ownership, registration details, and network information for IPv4 or IPv6 addresses.

Instructions

Looksup whois information about the IP

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
ipYes

Implementation Reference

  • Handler function that performs whois lookup for the given IP address using the whoisIp function from the 'whoiser' library, handles errors, and returns formatted text content.
    async ({ ip }) => {
      try {
        const result = await whoisIp(ip);
        return {
          content: [{ type: 'text', text: `IP whois lookup for: \n${JSON.stringify(result)}` }],
        };
      } catch (err: unknown) {
        const error = err as Error;
        return {
          content: [{ type: 'text', text: `Error: ${error.message}` }],
          isError: true
        };
      }
    }
  • Zod schema for input validation: requires an 'ip' parameter that is a valid IP address string.
    { ip: z.string().ip() },
  • src/index.ts:53-71 (registration)
    Registers the 'whois_ip' MCP tool with the server, specifying name, description, input schema, and handler function.
    server.tool(
      'whois_ip',
      'Looksup whois information about the IP',
      { ip: z.string().ip() },
      async ({ ip }) => {
        try {
          const result = await whoisIp(ip);
          return {
            content: [{ type: 'text', text: `IP whois lookup for: \n${JSON.stringify(result)}` }],
          };
        } catch (err: unknown) {
          const error = err as Error;
          return {
            content: [{ type: 'text', text: `Error: ${error.message}` }],
            isError: true
          };
        }
      }
    );
Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool performs a WHOIS lookup, implying a read-only operation, but doesn't clarify aspects like rate limits, authentication needs, error handling, or what specific information is returned. For a tool with no annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its behavior.

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 description is a single, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It's front-loaded with the core action, making it easy to parse. However, it could be slightly more structured to include key details, but it avoids redundancy and stays focused.

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

Completeness2/5

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

Given the tool's complexity (a network lookup tool with no annotations, no output schema, and low schema coverage), the description is incomplete. It doesn't address what information is returned, potential errors, or how it differs from sibling tools. For a tool that likely returns structured data, more context is needed to guide the agent effectively.

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 input schema has 1 parameter with 0% description coverage, so the schema provides no semantic details. The description adds minimal value by implying the parameter is an IP address, but doesn't explain format expectations (e.g., IPv4 vs. IPv6) or usage context. Since schema coverage is low, the description partially compensates but not fully, aligning with the baseline for moderate coverage gaps.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the verb ('looksup') and resource ('whois information about the IP'), making the purpose understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like whois_as, whois_domain, or whois_tld, which appear to handle different types of WHOIS queries. The description is specific enough to convey the tool's function but lacks sibling distinction.

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

Usage Guidelines2/5

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

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention sibling tools or suggest scenarios where whois_ip is appropriate compared to whois_domain or whois_as. There's no indication of prerequisites, limitations, or context for usage, leaving the agent with minimal direction.

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

Install Server

Other Tools

Latest Blog Posts

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/bharathvaj-ganesan/whois-mcp'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server