Сервер Model Context Protocol (MCP), предоставляющий комплексные возможности поиска WHOIS с использованием API IP2WHOIS. Этот сервер позволяет ИИ-агентам запрашивать сведения о регистрации доменов, включая даты истечения срока действия, информацию о регистраторе и данные о владельце.
Поиск домена: Получение подробных данных WHOIS для любого доменного имени.
Комплексные данные: Включает возраст домена, серверы имен, информацию о регистраторе, а также контактные данные администратора и отдела биллинга.
Фреймворк FastMCP: Построен на базе высокопроизводительного Python-фреймворка FastMCP.
Related MCP server: Whodis MCP Server
Для работы этого MCP-сервера требуется API-ключ. Вы можете зарегистрироваться, чтобы получить бесплатный API-ключ и выполнять до 500 запросов в месяц.
Для настройки также используется uv, который можно установить, следуя руководству.
Выполните следующие шаги, чтобы использовать этот MCP-сервер в Claude Desktop:
Скачайте репозиторий на локальный компьютер.
Настройте менеджер пакетов uv, для этого вы можете снова обратиться к руководству.
Убедитесь, что у вас установлен Claude Desktop. Если нет, скачайте его отсюда для Windows и MacOS или следуйте этому руководству для Linux.
Откройте claude_desktop_config.json в выбранном редакторе. Если у вас его еще нет, следуйте этому руководству, чтобы создать его.
Добавьте следующее в ваш 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>"
}
}
}
}Не забудьте заменить путь /path/to/ip2whois на ваш фактический путь к MCP-серверу IP2WHOIS на локальном компьютере.
Чтобы получить API-ключ, просто войдите в свою панель управления и скопируйте его оттуда. Замените <YOUR API key HERE> в приведенном выше коде на ваш фактический API-ключ.
Перезапустите Claude Desktop после сохранения изменений, и вы увидите его в меню Search and tools.
Просто введите запрос об IP-адресе в чате Claude Desktop. Примеры запросов:
Кто является регистратором (домена)?
Кто является владельцем (домена)?
Какая информация WHOIS для (домена)?
Например, ниже приведен результат для домена google.com:
В Claude Desktop модель автоматически сгенерирует вывод на основе результата, возвращенного MCP-сервером IP2WHOIS.
IP2WHOIS_API_KEY
API-ключ IP2WHOIS, который позволяет бесплатно выполнять до 500 запросов в месяц и получать более подробную информацию об IP-адресе. Вы можете зарегистрироваться для получения бесплатного API-ключа или оформить подписку, чтобы получить больше преимуществ.
get_whoisПоиск данных WHOIS для доменного имени.
Аргументы:
domain (string): Доменное имя для поиска (например, google.com).
Вывод: Возвращает JSON-объект, содержащий:
domain_id, status, domain_age
create_date, update_date, expire_date
registrar (имя, URL и т. д.)
registrant (имя, организация, страна)
nameservers
См. файл 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.