Skip to main content
Glama
universal-mcp

domain-checker

by universal-mcp
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Remote

Domain-checker Universal MCP Server

This repository contains an implementation of an Domain-checker Universal MCP (Model Context Protocol) server. It provides a standardized interface for interacting with Domain-checker's tools and services through a unified API.

The server is built using the Universal MCP framework.

This implementation follows the MCP specification, ensuring compatibility with other MCP-compliant services and tools.

Usage

You can start using Domain-checker directly from agentr.dev. Visit agentr.dev/apps and enable Domain-checker.

If you have not used universal mcp before follow the setup instructions at agentr.dev/quickstart

Related MCP server: domain-mcp

Available Tools

The full list of available tools is at Tools

Local Development

šŸ“‹ Prerequisites

Ensure you have the following before you begin:

  • Python 3.11+ (recommended)

  • uv (install globally with pip install uv)

šŸ› ļø Setup Instructions

Follow the steps below to set up your development environment:

  1. Sync Project Dependencies

    uv sync

    This installs all dependencies from pyproject.toml into a local virtual environment (.venv).

  2. Activate the Virtual Environment

    For Linux/macOS:

    source .venv/bin/activate

    For Windows (PowerShell):

    .venv\Scripts\Activate

  3. Start the MCP Inspector

    mcp dev src/universal_mcp_domain_checker/server.py

    This will start the MCP inspector. Make note of the address and port shown in the console output.

  4. Install the Application

    mcp install src/universal_mcp_domain_checker/server.py

šŸ“ Project Structure

.
ā”œā”€ā”€ src/
ā”‚   ā””ā”€ā”€ universal_mcp_domain_checker/
ā”‚       ā”œā”€ā”€ __init__.py       # Package initializer
ā”‚       ā”œā”€ā”€ server.py         # Server entry point
ā”‚       ā”œā”€ā”€ app.py            # Application tools
ā”‚       ā””ā”€ā”€ README.md         # List of application tools
ā”œā”€ā”€ tests/                    # Test suite
ā”œā”€ā”€ .env                      # Environment variables for local development
ā”œā”€ā”€ pyproject.toml            # Project configuration
ā””ā”€ā”€ README.md                 # This file

šŸ“„ License

This project is licensed under the MIT License.

Generated with MCP CLI ā€” Happy coding! šŸš€

Available Tools

2 tools
domain-checker_check_domain_toolB

Checks if a domain is available for registration by querying DNS records and RDAP data.

ParametersJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
domainYesString representing the domain name to check (e.g., "example.com")

TDQS

B3.4/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Mentions the method of checking (DNS and RDAP), which provides some behavioral context. However, no annotations exist, and the description does not disclose potential costs, rate limits, or whether the operation is truly read-only beyond what is implied. Bare minimum transparency 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.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Single sentence, 15 words, no wasted words. Efficient and direct, but could be slightly improved by front-loading the core purpose more prominently (though it already does).

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?

Adequate for a simple tool with one parameter and no output schema, but fails to describe the return format or error conditions. The agent does not know if the response is boolean, string, or structured, which is a gap given the complexity level.

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 already provides a clear description of the single parameter 'domain'. The tool description adds no additional meaning beyond what is in the schema. Baseline 3 due to 100% schema coverage.

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 the verb 'checks' and resource 'domain availability', distinguishing from sibling tool 'check_tlds_tool' by specifying it checks domains for registration availability. The description is specific and actionable.

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 on when to use this tool versus the sibling 'check_tlds_tool'. Lacks any contextual instructions about prerequisites, domain format restrictions, or when to prefer alternative tools.

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

domain-checker_check_tlds_toolC

Checks a keyword across multiple top-level domains (TLDs) to find available domain names.

ParametersJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
keywordYesString representing the keyword to check across TLDs (e.g., "myapp")

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 the full burden of behavioral transparency. It states the tool checks 'across multiple TLDs' but gives no details on which TLDs, how availability is determined, or any side effects (e.g., rate limits, caching). This minimal disclosure is insufficient for an agent to understand the tool's full behavior.

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 sentence that is front-loaded with the core action ('Checks a keyword across multiple TLDs') and includes the outcome ('find available domain names'). Every word is necessary and there is no redundancy or filler.

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 simplicity of this tool (one parameter, no output schema) and the presence of a sibling, the description should explain what 'available' means, whether there are limitations on TLDs checked, and how results are returned. The current description leaves significant gaps, making it incomplete for an agent to use effectively without additional context.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The parameter 'keyword' already has a clear description in the schema ('String representing the keyword to check across TLDs (e.g., "myapp")'). The tool description adds no new semantic information beyond what is in the schema, thus it does not improve the baseline.

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 tool checks a keyword across multiple TLDs to find available domains, using a specific verb and resource. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from the sibling tool 'domain-checker_check_domain_tool', which likely checks a specific domain rather than a keyword across TLDs. A brief contrast would elevate it to 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 the sibling 'domain-checker_check_domain_tool'. The context signals list the sibling but the description lacks any mention of scenarios where one should prefer this tool over the other, leaving the agent without decision criteria.

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

Tool Schema Changelog

Recent tool additions, removals, and schema changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. 2 tool updatesv0.1.1
    • First observeddomain-checker_check_domain_tool
    • First observeddomain-checker_check_tlds_tool
Deploy Server
One endpoint for every MCP toolRayrun runs every MCP server behind one URL and holds the credentials. Each call is decided per client, tool, and argument, then recorded.ray.runAd

TDQS

B3.4/5.0

Scored across 2 tools

Disambiguation5/5

The two tools have clearly distinct purposes: one checks a specific domain's availability, and the other checks a keyword across multiple TLDs. No overlap.

Naming Consistency5/5

Both tools follow a consistent verb_noun pattern with the 'check_' prefix and a common '_tool' suffix, making the naming predictable.

Tool Count3/5

With only 2 tools, the set feels thin for a domain checker, but it covers the core use cases of checking a single domain and exploring multiple TLDs.

Completeness3/5

The tools cover basic domain availability checking and keyword search across TLDs, but lack additional operations like detailed WHOIS lookups or bulk checks, leaving notable gaps.

Maintenance

ActivityInactive
ResponsivenessNo issues

Resources

Related MCP Connectors

Related MCP Servers

  • domain-check-mcp

    stucchi
    A
    license
    A
    quality
    D
    maintenance
    MCP server for checking domain name availability across 500+ TLDs using RDAP with WHOIS fallback for specific TLDs.
    2
    MIT

  • domain-mcp

    danielgtmn
    A
    license
    A
    quality
    A
    maintenance
    MCP server for checking domain name availability via RDAP and WHOIS fallback, supporting single and bulk domain lookups.
    5
    MIT
  • nameai-mcp by namekart

    nameai-mcpofficial

    namekart
    F
    license
    Not graded
    quality
    B
    maintenance
    Enables domain search and availability checks, WHOIS lookups, TLD registration pricing, and TLD requirement queries through MCP tools.
    -