Skip to main content
Glama
fetchSERP

FetchSERP MCP Server

Official
by fetchSERP

get_domain_info

Retrieve domain information such as DNS records, WHOIS data, SSL certificates, and technology stack for SEO and web analysis purposes.

Instructions

Get domain info including DNS records, WHOIS data, SSL certificates, and technology stack

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
domainYesThe domain to check

Implementation Reference

  • index.js:102-115 (registration)
    Registration of the 'get_domain_info' tool in the ListToolsRequestSchema handler, including name, description, and input schema.
    {
      name: 'get_domain_info',
      description: 'Get domain info including DNS records, WHOIS data, SSL certificates, and technology stack',
      inputSchema: {
        type: 'object',
        properties: {
          domain: {
            type: 'string',
            description: 'The domain to check',
          },
        },
        required: ['domain'],
      },
    },
  • Input schema definition for the 'get_domain_info' tool requiring a 'domain' string.
    inputSchema: {
      type: 'object',
      properties: {
        domain: {
          type: 'string',
          description: 'The domain to check',
        },
      },
      required: ['domain'],
    },
  • Handler implementation in handleToolCall switch statement; delegates to makeRequest API helper with endpoint '/api/v1/domain_infos'.
    case 'get_domain_info':
      return await this.makeRequest('/api/v1/domain_infos', 'GET', args, null, token);
  • Generic helper method 'makeRequest' used by the get_domain_info handler to perform authenticated API calls to FetchSERP endpoints.
    async makeRequest(endpoint, method = 'GET', params = {}, body = null, token = null) {
      const fetchserpToken = token || process.env.FETCHSERP_API_TOKEN;
      
      if (!fetchserpToken) {
        throw new McpError(
          ErrorCode.InvalidRequest,
          'FETCHSERP_API_TOKEN is required'
        );
      }
    
      const url = new URL(`${API_BASE_URL}${endpoint}`);
      
      // Add query parameters for GET requests
      if (method === 'GET' && Object.keys(params).length > 0) {
        Object.entries(params).forEach(([key, value]) => {
          if (value !== undefined && value !== null) {
            if (Array.isArray(value)) {
              value.forEach(v => url.searchParams.append(`${key}[]`, v));
            } else {
              url.searchParams.append(key, value.toString());
            }
          }
        });
      }
    
      const fetchOptions = {
        method,
        headers: {
          'Authorization': `Bearer ${fetchserpToken}`,
          'Content-Type': 'application/json',
        },
      };
    
      if (body && method !== 'GET') {
        fetchOptions.body = JSON.stringify(body);
      }
    
      const response = await fetch(url.toString(), fetchOptions);
      
      if (!response.ok) {
        const errorText = await response.text();
        throw new McpError(
          ErrorCode.InternalError,
          `API request failed: ${response.status} ${response.statusText} - ${errorText}`
        );
      }
    
      return await response.json();
    }
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 mentions what data is retrieved but lacks critical details: whether this is a read-only operation, requires authentication, has rate limits, returns real-time or cached data, or handles errors. For a tool fetching potentially sensitive domain info, this gap is significant and could lead to misuse.

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 front-loads the core purpose ('Get domain info') and enumerates key data types without fluff. Every word earns its place, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly. No unnecessary details or repetition are present.

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 complexity of domain analysis (multiple data sources) and lack of annotations or output schema, the description is incomplete. It lists data types but doesn't cover behavioral aspects like permissions, data freshness, or response structure. For a tool with no structured safety or output info, more context is needed to ensure reliable use.

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 100% description coverage, clearly documenting the single 'domain' parameter. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond implying the domain is checked for multiple info types. This meets the baseline of 3 since the schema does the heavy lifting, but the description doesn't enhance understanding (e.g., format examples like 'example.com').

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 'Get' and resource 'domain info', specifying what information is retrieved (DNS records, WHOIS data, SSL certificates, technology stack). It distinguishes from siblings like 'get_domain_ranking' or 'scrape_domain' by focusing on comprehensive domain metadata rather than rankings or content scraping. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with all siblings, so it's not a perfect 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?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention when-not scenarios (e.g., for real-time data vs. cached), prerequisites, or compare to siblings like 'get_domain_emails' or 'scrape_domain'. The agent must infer usage from the purpose alone, which is insufficient for optimal tool selection.

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

Related 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/fetchSERP/fetchserp-mcp-server-node'

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