Skip to main content
Glama
bharathvaj-ganesan

Whois MCP

whois_tld

Look up WHOIS information for Top Level Domains (TLDs) to check availability, registration details, and ownership data.

Instructions

Looksup whois information about the Top Level Domain (TLD)

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
tldYes

Implementation Reference

  • The handler function that performs the whoisTld lookup for the given TLD, formats the result as text content, and handles errors appropriately.
    async ({ tld }) => {
      try {
        const result = await whoisTld(tld);
        return {
          content: [{ type: 'text', text: `TLD whois lookup for: \n${JSON.stringify(result)}` }],
        };
      } catch (err: unknown) {
        const error = err as Error;
        return {
          content: [{ type: 'text', text: `Error: ${error.message}` }],
          isError: true
        };
      }
    }
  • Zod schema defining the input parameter 'tld' as a non-empty string.
    { tld: z.string().min(1) },
  • src/index.ts:32-50 (registration)
    Registers the 'whois_tld' tool on the MCP server with its name, description, input schema, and handler function.
    server.tool(
      'whois_tld',
      'Looksup whois information about the Top Level Domain (TLD)',
      { tld: z.string().min(1) },
      async ({ tld }) => {
        try {
          const result = await whoisTld(tld);
          return {
            content: [{ type: 'text', text: `TLD whois lookup for: \n${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?

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but offers minimal behavioral context. It doesn't disclose whether this is a read-only lookup, requires authentication, has rate limits, returns structured data, or handles errors. 'Looks up' suggests a query operation but lacks operational details.

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?

The description is a single, efficient sentence with no wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core purpose, making it easy to parse quickly.

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 no annotations, 0% schema coverage, no output schema, and a sibling-rich context, the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain what whois information is returned, error conditions, or how it differs from other whois tools, leaving significant gaps for agent understanding.

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

Parameters2/5

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

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate but doesn't. It mentions 'TLD' generally but provides no details about the 'tld' parameter format (e.g., valid TLD strings like '.com', case sensitivity, without leading dot). The schema only specifies it's a required string with minLength 1.

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 action ('looks up') and target resource ('whois information about the Top Level Domain (TLD)'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like whois_domain or whois_ip, which would require a 5.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus its siblings (whois_as, whois_domain, whois_ip). The description implies it's for TLDs specifically, but doesn't clarify use cases, prerequisites, or alternatives.

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