IP2WHOIS API를 사용하여 포괄적인 WHOIS 조회 기능을 제공하는 MCP(Model Context Protocol) 서버입니다. 이 서버를 통해 AI 에이전트는 만료일, 등록 기관 정보, 등록자 데이터를 포함한 도메인 등록 세부 정보를 쿼리할 수 있습니다.
도메인 조회: 모든 도메인 이름에 대한 상세 WHOIS 데이터를 검색합니다.
포괄적인 데이터: 도메인 연령, 네임서버, 등록 기관 정보, 관리/청구 연락처 세부 정보를 포함합니다.
FastMCP 프레임워크: 고성능 FastMCP Python 프레임워크를 사용하여 구축되었습니다.
Related MCP server: Whodis MCP Server
이 MCP 서버를 사용하려면 API 키가 필요합니다. 여기에서 무료 API 키를 등록하면 매월 최대 500건의 쿼리를 사용할 수 있습니다.
또한 설정에는 uv가 사용되며, 가이드에 따라 설치할 수 있습니다.
Claude Desktop에서 이 MCP 서버를 사용하려면 다음 단계를 따르세요:
저장소를 로컬로 다운로드합니다.
uv 패키지 관리자를 설정합니다. 가이드를 다시 참조할 수 있습니다.
Claude Desktop이 설치되어 있는지 확인합니다. 설치하지 않았다면 Windows 및 MacOS 사용자는 여기에서 다운로드하고, Linux 사용자는 이 가이드를 따르세요.
원하는 편집기에서 claude_desktop_config.json을 엽니다. 아직 파일이 없다면 이 가이드에 따라 생성하세요.
claude_desktop_config.json에 다음 내용을 추가합니다:
{
"mcpServers": {
"ip2whois": {
"command": "uv",
"args": [
"--directory",
"/path/to/ip2whois/src",
"run",
"server.py"
],
"env": {
"IP2WHOIS_API_KEY": "<YOUR API key HERE>"
}
}
}
}/path/to/ip2whois 경로를 로컬에 있는 IP2WHOIS MCP 서버의 실제 경로로 바꾸는 것을 잊지 마세요.
API 키를 얻으려면 로그인하여 대시보드에서 확인하세요. 위 코드의 <YOUR API key HERE>를 실제 API 키로 교체하세요.
변경 사항을 저장한 후 Claude Desktop을 다시 시작하면 Search and tools 메뉴에 나타날 것입니다.
Claude Desktop 채팅창에 IP에 관한 쿼리를 입력하기만 하면 됩니다. 몇 가지 예시 쿼리는 다음과 같습니다:
(domain)의 등록 기관은 어디인가요?
(domain)의 소유자는 누구인가요?
(domain)의 WHOIS 정보는 무엇인가요?
예를 들어, google.com 도메인에 대한 결과는 다음과 같습니다:
Claude Desktop에서 모델은 IP2WHOIS MCP 서버가 반환한 결과를 바탕으로 자동으로 출력을 생성합니다.
IP2WHOIS_API_KEY
IP2WHOIS API 키입니다. 이를 통해 매월 최대 500건의 무료 쿼리를 수행하고 IP 주소에 대한 더 자세한 정보를 얻을 수 있습니다. 무료 API 키를 등록하거나 플랜을 구독하여 더 많은 혜택을 누릴 수 있습니다.
get_whois도메인 이름에 대한 WHOIS 데이터를 조회합니다.
인수:
domain (string): 조회할 도메인 이름 (예: google.com).
출력: 다음을 포함하는 JSON 객체를 반환합니다:
domain_id, status, domain_age
create_date, update_date, expire_date
registrar (이름, URL 등)
registrant (이름, 조직, 국가)
nameservers
LICENSE 파일을 참조하세요.
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.