What can you do with this server?

The Whois MCP server allows AI agents to perform WHOIS lookups and retrieve information for: * whois_domain: Domain lookups that provide registrar, registrant details, registration/expiry dates, name servers, domain status, and contact information * whois_tld: Top-Level Domain lookups * whois_ip: IP address lookups (both IPv4 and IPv6) * whois_as: Autonomous System Number (ASN) lookups

How do I use Whois MCP?

1. Click on "Install Server". 2. Wait a few minutes for the server to deploy. Once ready, it will show a "Started" state. 3. In the chat, type @ followed by the MCP server name and your instructions, e.g., "@Whois MCP check if example.com is available and who owns it" That's it! The server will respond to your query, and you can continue using it as needed. Here is a step-by-step guide with screenshots.

en es ja ko zh

Whois MCP

by bharathvaj-ganesan

Overview Schema Related Servers Score Discussions

JavaScript

Remote

Whois MCP

Model Context Protocol server for whois lookups.

Cursor IDE Demo

https://github.com/user-attachments/assets/57a82adc-3f30-453f-aabd-7138c2e6a21d

Claude Desktop Demo

https://github.com/user-attachments/assets/d30a1f45-fdaf-4280-80f2-d5d4fc9743b1

Overview

This MCP server allows AI agents like Claude Desktop, Cursor, Windsurf,.. etc to perform WHOIS lookups and retrieve domain details.

Purpose You can directly ask the AI to check if a domain is available, who owns it, when it was registered, and other important details. No need to go to browser and search.

What is a WHOIS Lookup? A WHOIS lookup is the process of querying a WHOIS database to retrieve registration details about a domain name, IP address, or autonomous system. It helps users find out who owns a domain, when it was registered, when it expires, and other important details.

What Information Can a WHOIS Lookup Provide?

When you perform a WHOIS lookup, you can retrieve details such as:

Domain Name – The specific domain queried
Registrar Name – The company managing the domain registration (e.g., GoDaddy, Namecheap)
Registrant Details – The name, organization, and contact details of the domain owner (unless protected by WHOIS privacy)
Registration & Expiry Date – When the domain was registered and when it will expire
Name Servers – The DNS servers the domain is using
Domain Status – Active, expired, locked, or pending deletion
Contact Information – Administrative, technical, and billing contacts (if not hidden)

Related MCP server: Whodis MCP Server

Available Tools

Tool	Description
`whois_domain`	Looksup whois information about the domain
`whois_tld`	Looksup whois information about the Top Level Domain (TLD)
`whois_ip`	Looksup whois information about the IP
`whois_as`	Looksup whois information about the Autonomous System Number (ASN)

Using with Cursor

Installation - Globally

Run the MCP server using npx:

npx -y @bharathvaj/whois-mcp@latest

In your Cursor IDE

Go to Cursor Settings > MCP
Click + Add New MCP Server
Fill in the form:
- Name: Whois Lookup (or any name you prefer)
- Type: command
- Command: npx -y @bharathvaj/whois-mcp@latest

Installation - Project-specific

Add an .cursor/mcp.json file to your project:

{
  "mcpServers": {
    "whois": {
      "command": "npx",
      "args": [
        "-y",
        "@bharathvaj/whois-mcp@latest"
      ]
    }
  }
}

Usage

Once configured, the whois tools will be automatically available to the Cursor AI Agent. You can:

The tool will be listed under Available Tools in MCP settings
Agent will automatically use it when relevant
You can explicitly ask Agent to send notifications

Using with Roo Code

Access the MCP settings by clicking “Edit MCP Settings” in Roo Code settings or using the “Roo Code: Open MCP Config” command in VS Code's command palette.

{
  "mcpServers": {
    "whois": {
      "command": "npx",
      "args": [
        "-y",
        "@bharathvaj/whois-mcp@latest"
      ]
    }
  }
}

The whois capabilities will be available to Roo Code's AI agents

Development

# Install dependencies
pnpm install

# Build
pnpm build

Debugging the Server

To debug your server, you can use the MCP Inspector.

First build the server

pnpm build

Run the following command in your terminal:

# Start MCP Inspector and server with all tools
npx @modelcontextprotocol/inspector node dist/index.js

License

MIT

Available Tools

4 tools

whois_asC

Looksup whois information about the Autonomous System Number (ASN)

ParametersJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`asn`	Yes

TDQS

C2.9/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states the tool performs a lookup but doesn't describe what the lookup entails (e.g., external API call, rate limits, authentication needs, data freshness, or error conditions). For a tool that likely queries external whois databases, this lack of operational context is a significant gap.

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 that directly states the tool's function without unnecessary words. It's appropriately sized for a simple lookup tool and front-loads the key information. There's no wasted verbiage or redundant phrasing.

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 likely complexity (external whois query), absence of annotations, and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't cover what information is returned, how results are structured, potential limitations, or error handling. For a network lookup tool that agents might use in troubleshooting scenarios, more contextual information would be valuable.

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 0% description coverage, but the tool has only one required parameter (asn). The description adds minimal semantics by indicating the parameter should be an 'Autonomous System Number (ASN)', which aligns with the schema's pattern constraint. However, it doesn't explain the ASN format beyond what the regex implies, nor does it provide examples or usage context for the parameter.

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 ('Looksup') and resource ('whois information about the Autonomous System Number (ASN)'), making the purpose understandable. It doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like whois_domain or whois_ip, but the focus on ASN provides implicit distinction. The description avoids tautology by specifying what information is retrieved rather than just restating the tool name.

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 its siblings (whois_domain, whois_ip, whois_tld). It doesn't mention alternatives, prerequisites, or exclusions. The only implied usage is for ASN lookups, but without explicit comparison to other whois tools, the agent must infer the distinction based on parameter types alone.

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

whois_domainC

Looksup whois information about the domain

ParametersJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`domain`	Yes

TDQS

C2.8/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the action ('looksup') but doesn't describe what information is returned, potential rate limits, error conditions, or authentication requirements. This leaves significant gaps for a tool that presumably queries external WHOIS data.

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 zero wasted words. It's appropriately sized for a simple lookup tool and front-loads the essential information.

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?

For a tool with no annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema description coverage, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what WHOIS information is returned, how results are structured, or any behavioral constraints. The agent would struggle to use this tool effectively without additional context.

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?

The schema has 0% description coverage, so the single 'domain' parameter is completely undocumented in the schema. The description mentions 'domain' but provides no additional semantics about what constitutes a valid domain (e.g., format examples, TLD requirements, handling of subdomains). This doesn't adequately compensate for the schema gap.

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 domain'), making the purpose understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly distinguish this tool from its siblings (whois_as, whois_ip, whois_tld) beyond the domain focus, which prevents a perfect score.

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 its siblings. It doesn't mention alternatives like whois_ip for IP addresses or whois_as for autonomous systems, leaving the agent to infer usage from the tool name alone.

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

whois_ipC

Looksup whois information about the IP

ParametersJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`ip`	Yes

TDQS

C2.9/5.0

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.

whois_tldC

Looksup whois information about the Top Level Domain (TLD)

ParametersJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`tld`	Yes

TDQS

C2.8/5.0

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

RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

TDQS

A3.5/5.0

Disambiguation5/5

Each tool has a clearly distinct purpose targeting a specific resource type: ASN, domain, IP, and TLD. The naming directly indicates the target, making it impossible to confuse which tool to use for a given query.

Naming Consistency5/5

All tools follow a perfect verb_noun pattern with 'whois_' prefix followed by the resource type (as, domain, ip, tld). This consistent naming scheme makes the tool set predictable and easy to understand.

Tool Count5/5

Four tools is ideal for this server's purpose of providing WHOIS lookups for different internet resource types. Each tool covers a distinct category, making the set well-scoped without being too sparse or bloated.

Completeness5/5

The tool set comprehensively covers the WHOIS domain by providing lookups for all major internet resource types: autonomous systems, domains, IP addresses, and top-level domains. There are no apparent gaps in coverage for this purpose.

Maintenance

ActivityInactive

ResponsivenessSyncing

Resources

Need Help?

Reddit Discussion

Related Servers

Unclaimed servers have limited discoverability.

Looking for Admin?

If you are the server author, to access and configure the admin panel.

Related MCP Connectors

domain-intel-mcp A
com.datakoot
Domain & company intel for AI agents: RDAP, DNS, email deliverability, tech stack. No API keys.
Networking & Infrastructure Security Open Data
62
Domain & Company Intel MCP A
io.github.selflabbs
Domain intel for AI agents: RDAP registration, DNS, email deliverability, tech stack.
Networking & Infrastructure Email Search
2
Unstoppable Domains
com.unstoppabledomains
Domain search, registration, DNS, marketplace, and checkout with your AI agent.
Blockchain Web3 & Decentralized Tech
22
mcp
ai.customdomain
Custom domains for SaaS and AI agents: search, register, connect DNS, and issue HTTPS over MCP.
Networking & Infrastructure Developer Tools Cloud Platforms
2

Related MCP Servers

Whois MCP
Search Web Scraping
modelcontextprotocol-servers
A
license
B
quality
D
maintenance
Enables AI agents to perform WHOIS lookups to retrieve domain registration details, including ownership, registration dates, and availability status without requiring browser searches.
Updated a year ago (2025-03-07 10:13 UTC)
4
57
21
MIT
Whodis MCP Server
Search Developer Tools
vinsidious
A
license
Not graded
quality
D
maintenance
A Model Context Protocol server that enables AI assistants to check domain name availability using WHOIS lookups.
Updated 9 months ago (2025-11-24 12:38 UTC)
17
4
ISC
Domain-MCP
Search Web Scraping Developer Tools
rinadelph
A
license
Not graded
quality
F
maintenance
A simple MCP server that enables AI assistants to perform domain research including availability checking, WHOIS lookups, DNS record retrieval, and finding expired domains without requiring API keys.
Updated a year ago (2025-06-28 08:04 UTC)
62
MIT
mcp-ip2whoisofficial
Search Networking & Infrastructure
ip2whois
A
license
A
quality
C
maintenance
A Model Context Protocol (MCP) server that provides comprehensive WHOIS lookup capabilities using the IP2WHOIS API. This server allows AI agents to query domain registration details, including expiry dates, registrar information, and registrant data.
Updated 3 months ago (2026-05-25 06:53 UTC)
2
1
MIT

Appeared in Searches

Latest Blog Posts

Who's Calling? MCP Hosts Are an Identity Blind Spot (And the Spec Knows It)
By Om-Shree-0709 on July 25, 2026.
mcp
Agent Identity
OAuth 2.1
Your AI Chatbot Just Exposed Your CEO's Salary to an Intern
By Om-Shree-0709 on July 2, 2026.
Agent Identity
MCP Security
OAuth Delegation
Why MCP Servers Need Execution Sandboxing (And Why Your Current Stack Isn't Enough)
By Om-Shree-0709 on June 30, 2026.
Agentic Ai
Prompt Injection
WebAssembly

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

Whois MCP

Overview

Available Tools

Using with Cursor

Using with Roo Code

Development

Debugging the Server

License

Available Tools

Maintenance

Resources

Looking for Admin?

Related MCP Connectors

Related MCP Servers

mcp-ip2whoisofficial

Appeared in Searches

Latest Blog Posts

MCP directory API