Un servidor del Protocolo de Contexto de Modelo (MCP) que proporciona capacidades integrales de búsqueda WHOIS utilizando la API de IP2WHOIS. Este servidor permite a los agentes de IA consultar detalles de registro de dominios, incluyendo fechas de caducidad, información del registrador y datos del registrante.
Búsqueda de dominios: Obtenga datos WHOIS detallados para cualquier nombre de dominio.
Datos integrales: Incluye la antigüedad del dominio, servidores de nombres, información del registrador y detalles de contacto administrativo/de facturación.
Marco de trabajo FastMCP: Construido utilizando el marco de trabajo de Python de alto rendimiento FastMCP.
Related MCP server: Whodis MCP Server
Este servidor MCP requiere una clave de API para funcionar. Puede registrarse para obtener una clave de API gratuita y disfrutar de hasta 500 consultas al mes.
La configuración también utiliza uv, que puede instalarse siguiendo la guía.
Siga los pasos para utilizar este servidor MCP con Claude Desktop:
Descargue el repositorio en su equipo local.
Configure el gestor de paquetes uv; puede consultar de nuevo la guía para hacerlo.
Asegúrese de haber instalado Claude Desktop; si no lo ha hecho, descárguelo desde aquí para usuarios de Windows y MacOS, o siga esta guía para usuarios de Linux.
Abra el archivo claude_desktop_config.json en el editor de su elección; si aún no tiene uno, siga esta guía para crear uno.
Añada lo siguiente a su claude_desktop_config.json:
{
"mcpServers": {
"ip2whois": {
"command": "uv",
"args": [
"--directory",
"/path/to/ip2whois/src",
"run",
"server.py"
],
"env": {
"IP2WHOIS_API_KEY": "<YOUR API key HERE>"
}
}
}
}Recuerde reemplazar la ruta /path/to/ip2whois con su ruta real al servidor MCP IP2WHOIS en su equipo local.
Para obtener su clave de API, simplemente inicie sesión en su panel de control y obténgala desde allí. Reemplace <YOUR API key HERE> en el paso anterior con su clave de API real.
Reinicie Claude Desktop después de guardar los cambios y debería verlo aparecer en el menú Search and tools.
Simplemente introduzca su consulta sobre la IP en un chat en Claude Desktop. Algunos ejemplos de consultas serían:
¿Quién es el registrador de (dominio)?
¿Quién es el propietario de (dominio)?
¿Cuál es el WHOIS para (dominio)?
Por ejemplo, a continuación se muestra el resultado del dominio google.com:
En Claude Desktop, el modelo generará automáticamente el resultado basado en la respuesta devuelta por el servidor MCP IP2WHOIS.
IP2WHOIS_API_KEY
La clave de API de IP2WHOIS, que le permite consultar hasta 500 veces al mes de forma gratuita y obtener más detalles de la dirección IP. Puede registrarse para obtener una clave de API gratuita, o suscribirse a un plan para disfrutar de más beneficios.
get_whoisBusca datos WHOIS para un nombre de dominio.
Argumentos:
domain (string): El nombre de dominio a buscar (ej., google.com).
Salida: Devuelve un objeto JSON que contiene:
domain_id, status, domain_age
create_date, update_date, expire_date
registrar (nombre, URL, etc.)
registrant (nombre, organización, país)
nameservers
Consulte el archivo LICENSE.
Lookup for the list of hosted domain names by IP address.
Args:
ip: The ip address (IPv4 or IPv6) to look up.
Returns:
A JSON string result includes the domains hosted on the ip address, and the
total number of hosted domains found.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| ip | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are present, so description carries full burden. It discloses that the tool returns a JSON string with domains and total count, but does not mention any limitations, rate limits, error handling, or data source freshness. For a simple lookup, this is adequate but not highly transparent.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is short and includes structured Args/Returns sections. It is clear and to the point, though the Returns section could be more concise.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple tool with one parameter and no nested objects, the description covers the essential behavior. The presence of an output schema (even if not detailed here) reduces the need to explain return values further.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 0%, but the description adds clear meaning to the single required parameter 'ip', specifying it expects an IPv4 or IPv6 address. This significantly helps an agent understand what to provide.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states it is a lookup for hosted domain names by IP address. The verb 'Lookup' and resource 'hosted domain names' are specific, and it distinguishes from sibling tool 'get_whois' which does WHOIS lookups.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage context (reverse DNS lookups) but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives. No exclusions or when-not-to-use guidance is provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Lookup WHOIS data for a domain name. Use this tool when the user asks about
domain registration details, registrar names, expiry dates, domain ownership,
or nameservers for a specific website (e.g., 'google.com').
Args:
domain: The domain name to look up (e.g., 'example.com').
Returns:
A JSON string result includes domain age, update and expiry date, assiociated nameservers, registrar and registrant information, and admin, tech and billing information.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| domain | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It describes the return format and fields, indicating it is a read-only lookup, but does not mention error handling or authorization needs.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise with an effective structure: purpose statement, Args, Returns. Every sentence adds value with no waste.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool is simple with one parameter and an output schema, the description covers parameter and return data well. It lacks mention of errors or limitations, but is otherwise complete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The domain parameter is clearly described with purpose and an example. Schema has no description (0% coverage), so the description fully compensates by explaining what the parameter is.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states it performs a WHOIS lookup for a domain name, listing specific details like registrar, expiry, nameservers, etc. It is distinct from the sibling tool get_hosted_domains by focusing on registration data.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Explicitly says when to use this tool: when user asks about domain registration details, registrar, expiry, etc. However, it does not mention when not to use or differentiate from the sibling tool.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Recent tool additions, removals, and schema changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.2.0get_hosted_domainsget_whoisv1.1.0get_whoisv0.1.0get_whoisScored across 2 tools
The two tools have clearly distinct purposes: one resolves IP addresses to hosted domains, the other retrieves WHOIS data for domain names. There is no functional overlap.
Both tools follow the consistent verb_noun pattern (get_hosted_domains, get_whois), making the naming predictable and easy to understand.
With only two tools, the server feels minimal for the domain of IP and domain information. While the tools cover core functionalities, the count is at the lower boundary of what's reasonable.
The tools cover hosted domains and WHOIS lookups, but common related operations like IP geolocation, domain availability checks, or reverse IP lookups are missing. The surface is functional but not comprehensive.
WHOIS/RDAP lookup, IP geolocation and Punycode conversion. 1400+ TLDs incl. IDN. No API key.
Domain intel for AI agents: RDAP registration, DNS, email deliverability, tech stack.
Domain intel for AI agents: RDAP registration, DNS, email deliverability, tech stack.
Free MCP server: 36 security & dev API tools -- WHOIS, DNS, CVE, IP reputation, Cosmos SDK.