Skip to main content
Glama
devstroop

domain-mcp

by devstroop
OverviewSchemaRelated ServersScoreDiscussions
TypeScript
Remote

Server Quality Checklist

67%
Profile completionA complete profile improves this server's visibility in search results.

  • Latest release: v1.0.0

  • Disambiguation5/5

    Each tool has a clearly distinct purpose: domain search suggestions, single availability check, bulk availability check, and WHOIS lookup. Even though check_domain and whois_lookup both return registration details, one focuses on availability and RDAP while the other provides full WHOIS data, avoiding confusion.

    Naming Consistency5/5

    All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern with snake_case: search_domains, check_domain, check_multiple_domains, whois_lookup. The naming is predictable and uniform.

    Tool Count5/5

    With 4 tools, the server is well-scoped for domain search and lookup operations. Each tool serves a core function without redundancy, fitting the typical 3-15 tool range.

    Completeness4/5

    The tool set covers search, single and bulk availability checks, and detailed WHOIS data—covering the main domain lookup needs. A minor gap is the absence of DNS record lookup, but for a domain availability and WHOIS server, this is acceptable.

  • Average 4.3/5 across 4 of 4 tools scored.

    See the Tool Scores section below for per-tool breakdowns.

    • No community issues in the last 6 months
    • No commit activity data available
    • No stable releases found
    • No critical vulnerability alerts
    • No high-severity vulnerability alerts
    • No code scanning findings
    • CI status not available

  • This repository is licensed under MIT License.

  • This repository includes a README.md file.

  • No tool usage detected in the last 30 days. Usage tracking helps demonstrate server value.

    Tip: use the "Try in Browser" feature on the server page to seed initial usage.

  • Add a glama.json file to provide metadata about your server.

  • If you are the author, simply .

    If the server belongs to an organization, first add glama.json to the root of your repository:

    {
  "$schema": "https://glama.ai/mcp/schemas/server.json",
  "maintainers": [
    "your-github-username"
  ]
}

    Then . Browse examples.

  • Add related servers to improve discoverability.

How to sync the server with GitHub?

Servers are automatically synced at least once per day, but you can also sync manually at any time to instantly update the server profile.

To manually sync the server, click the "Sync Server" button in the MCP server admin interface.

How is the quality score calculated?

The overall quality score combines two components: Tool Definition Quality (70%) and Server Coherence (30%).

Tool Definition Quality measures how well each tool describes itself to AI agents. Every tool is scored 1–5 across six dimensions: Purpose Clarity (25%), Usage Guidelines (20%), Behavioral Transparency (20%), Parameter Semantics (15%), Conciseness & Structure (10%), and Contextual Completeness (10%). The server-level definition quality score is calculated as 60% mean TDQS + 40% minimum TDQS, so a single poorly described tool pulls the score down.

Server Coherence evaluates how well the tools work together as a set, scoring four dimensions equally: Disambiguation (can agents tell tools apart?), Naming Consistency, Tool Count Appropriateness, and Completeness (are there gaps in the tool surface?).

Tiers are derived from the overall score: A (≥3.5), B (≥3.0), C (≥2.0), D (≥1.0), F (<1.0). B and above is considered passing.

Tool Scores

  • Behavior3/5

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

    Discloses it uses RDAP and domainr.com and that no API key is required. However, no annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden; it lacks details on rate limits, result limits, or behavior when query is a full domain.

    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?

    Two sentences: first states purpose, second adds details and examples. No wasted words, front-loaded with key information.

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

    Completeness3/5

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

    No output schema, so description should elaborate on return format. It only says 'returns matching domain names with availability status', but doesn't specify structure (e.g., array of objects). Could be more complete.

    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 baseline 3. Description adds value by giving examples (e.g., 'devstroop', 'acme coffee') and explaining what happens when tlds are omitted. This goes beyond the schema.

    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?

    Clearly states it searches for domain name suggestions and checks availability, with examples like 'devstroop' or 'acme coffee'. Distinguishes from siblings that check specific domains or perform WHOIS lookups.

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

    Usage Guidelines3/5

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

    Provides context that no API key is required and describes input, but does not explicitly say when to use this tool versus check_domain, check_multiple_domains, or whois_lookup. Usage is implied rather than stated.

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

  • Behavior4/5

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

    With no annotations, the description carries the burden. It explains the method (RDAP + DNS), the return data, and that no API key is needed. This is sufficient for a read-only check tool.

    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?

    Two well-crafted sentences with no wasted words. The description front-loads the action and resource, then lists returns and method.

    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?

    For a tool with low complexity (1 param, no output schema), the description fully covers purpose, return fields, and method. No gaps evident.

    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?

    Schema coverage is 100%, so the parameter is fully described in the schema. The description does not add detail about the parameter beyond what the schema already provides, achieving baseline.

    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 description clearly states the verb 'Check', specifies the resource 'specific domain name', and enumerates the returned data. It distinguishes from siblings like 'search_domains' (multiple) and 'whois_lookup' (WHOIS protocol vs RDAP+DNS).

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

    Usage Guidelines4/5

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

    The description notes 'No API key required' which guides usage. It does not explicitly compare to siblings, but the context makes it clear this is for single domain checks. No exclusions provided.

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

  • Behavior4/5

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

    No annotations, so description carries full burden. It states return details (availability, registrar, expiry) and 'No API key required.' Does not mention rate limits or error handling, but sufficient for a simple check tool.

    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?

    Three sentences, front-loaded with main action. No wasted words. Key details (max 20, no API key) are included efficiently.

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

    Completeness4/5

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

    For a single-parameter tool with no output schema, description covers purpose, usage scenario, constraint (max 20), and auth requirement. Could mention error behavior, but overall sufficient.

    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 has 100% coverage with description for 'domains.' The tool description adds usage context (example, max 20) and comparison use case, adding value beyond schema.

    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 description clearly states the tool checks availability of multiple domain names at once, with a comparison table output. It provides example usage and distinguishes from siblings like check_domain (single) and search_domains.

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

    Usage Guidelines4/5

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

    Explicitly says 'useful for comparing alternatives' with examples. Also mentions max 20 domains per request. Missing explicit when-not-to-use or alternatives, but siblings provide context.

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

  • Behavior4/5

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

    The description discloses that it queries real WHOIS servers directly via TCP port 43 without requiring an API key. This is useful beyond the schema. It does not mention error handling or rate limits, but for a simple tool, this is adequate.

    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 extremely concise with two sentences: first defines purpose and output, second adds method and parameter option. No wasted words.

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

    Completeness4/5

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

    For a simple tool with no output schema, the description covers the main purpose, method, and return fields. It could mention domain format validation or limitations (e.g., no IP), but it is sufficiently complete for effective use.

    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%, but the description adds value by listing the parsed fields returned (registrar, dates, etc.) not present in the schema. The raw parameter is also described, echoing the schema but providing context.

    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 description clearly states the action ('Perform a WHOIS lookup') and the specific resource ('domain name'). It lists the returned data fields, which distinguishes it from sibling tools like search_domains or check_domain.

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

    Usage Guidelines4/5

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

    The description provides clear context (direct TCP query, no API key required) and mentions the raw parameter. However, it does not explicitly say when not to use or compare with alternatives, though the purpose is self-evident.

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

GitHub Badge

Glama performs regular codebase and documentation scans to:

  • Confirm that the MCP server is working as expected.
  • Confirm that there are no obvious security issues.
  • Evaluate tool definition quality.

Our badge communicates server capabilities, safety, and installation instructions.

Card Badge

domain-search-mcp MCP server

Copy to your README.md:

Score Badge

domain-search-mcp MCP server

Copy to your README.md:

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/devstroop/domain-search-mcp'

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