broke2built-skills-mcp

whois_rdap

Retrieve domain registration details including creation and expiration dates, age, registrar, status, and nameservers via RDAP.

Instructions

Domain registration intel via RDAP: created/expires, age, registrar, status, nameservers. (free taste tier: 20 calls/day/IP — set ALLY_KEY env for 100/day free)

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "domain": "<domain>"
    },
    "name": "whois_rdap"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`domain`	Yes	The domain to analyze

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.1.1Jul 27, 2026

TDQS

A4/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

No annotations provided, but description discloses rate limits (20 calls/day/IP, upgradeable with ALLY_KEY), indicating it's a read-only query tool. Describes output data types. Could mention data freshness or response format, but overall transparent about behavior and limitations.

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?

Two sentences: first explains purpose and data, second specifies rate limits and key configuration. Front-loaded with core info, no unnecessary words. Highly concise and well-structured.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given one parameter and no output schema, the description covers purpose, data fields, and usage limits. Lacks explicit mention of return format (likely JSON) but is fairly complete for a simple tool. Minor gap: no mention of error handling or data staleness.

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 has one parameter (domain) with a clear description. Coverage is 100%, so baseline 3. Description adds context about the fields returned but does not elaborate on the parameter beyond the schema. Acceptable for a simple single-parameter tool.

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?

Description clearly states it provides domain registration intel via RDAP, listing specific data fields (created/expires, age, registrar, status, nameservers). It distinguishes from siblings like domain_intel and dns_lookup by specifying the protocol (RDAP) and exact data provided.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines3/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Provides context on rate limits and API key usage for higher tier, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool over its siblings (e.g., when RDAP data is preferred over DNS or general domain intel). Implied usage for domain registration details, but lacks explicit when-not-to-use guidance.

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

Deploy Server