Click on "Install Server".
Wait a few minutes for the server to deploy. Once ready, it will show a "Started" state.
In the chat, type @ followed by the MCP server name and your instructions, e.g., "@mcp-aliyun-domain Is example.com available?"
That's it! The server will respond to your query, and you can continue using it as needed.
Here is a step-by-step guide with screenshots.
免责声明： 本项目为第三方社区开源工具，与阿里巴巴集团及阿里云无任何关联，非阿里云官方产品。阿里云（Aliyun）及相关标识是阿里巴巴集团的商标。使用本项目前请自行评估风险。
MCP 服务器，集成阿里云域名 API，支持从 AI 助手直接查询域名可用性、获取域名详情、管理域名列表和创建域名注册订单。
工具 | 描述 |
| 查询域名是否可注册 |
| 查询域名详细信息 |
| 列出阿里云账号下的域名列表 |
| 创建域名注册订单 |
Related MCP server: Domain Checker MCP Server
使用 pnpm（推荐）：
pnpm install -g mcp-aliyun-domain使用 npm：
npm install -g mcp-aliyun-domain或者使用 pnpm dlx / npx 直接运行：
pnpm dlx mcp-aliyun-domain
# 或
npx mcp-aliyun-domain方式一：.env 文件（推荐）
复制示例文件并填写您的密钥：
cp .env.example .env
# 编辑 .env 填入您的 AccessKey方式二：环境变量
export ALIBABA_CLOUD_ACCESS_KEY_ID="your-access-key-id"
export ALIBABA_CLOUD_ACCESS_KEY_SECRET="your-access-key-secret"方式三：自动发现
当您未配置任何凭证时，服务器会自动尝试以下来源（按顺序）：
阿里云 CLI 配置（~/.aliyun/config.json）
阿里云凭证文件（~/.alibabacloud/credentials）
ECS RAM 角色（仅在阿里云 ECS 上运行时可用）
适合已在本地配置过阿里云 CLI 或运行在阿里云 ECS 上的用户。
方式一：CLI 命令（推荐）
openclaw mcp add aliyun-domain \
--command npx \
--arg -y \
--arg mcp-aliyun-domain \
--env ALIBABA_CLOUD_ACCESS_KEY_ID=your-key \
--env ALIBABA_CLOUD_ACCESS_KEY_SECRET=your-secret添加后验证：
openclaw mcp probe aliyun-domain # 应显示 4 tools
openclaw mcp reload # 通知网关加载新配置方式二：手动编辑配置文件
在 ~/.openclaw/openclaw.json 的 mcp.servers 中添加：
{
"mcp": {
"servers": {
"aliyun-domain": {
"command": "npx",
"args": ["-y", "mcp-aliyun-domain"],
"env": {
"ALIBABA_CLOUD_ACCESS_KEY_ID": "your-key",
"ALIBABA_CLOUD_ACCESS_KEY_SECRET": "your-secret"
}
}
}
}
}在 ~/.config/opencode/opencode.jsonc 中的 mcp 字段添加：
{
"mcp": {
"aliyun-domain": {
"type": "local",
"command": ["npx", "-y", "mcp-aliyun-domain"],
"environment": {
"ALIBABA_CLOUD_ACCESS_KEY_ID": "your-key",
"ALIBABA_CLOUD_ACCESS_KEY_SECRET": "your-secret"
}
}
}
}在 Qoder MCP 配置文件中添加（Qoder CN 路径为 ~/.config/QoderCN/SharedClientCache/mcp.json）：
{
"mcpServers": {
"aliyun-domain": {
"command": "npx",
"args": ["-y", "mcp-aliyun-domain"],
"env": {
"ALIBABA_CLOUD_ACCESS_KEY_ID": "your-key",
"ALIBABA_CLOUD_ACCESS_KEY_SECRET": "your-secret"
}
}
}
}输入： 帮我查询 myawesomeapp.com 是否可以注册
输出：
域名: myawesomeapp.com
可用性: 可注册 (code: 1)
✅ 该域名可以注册！
建议使用 create_order 工具创建注册订单输入： 查询 google.com 能否注册
输出：
域名: google.com
可用性: 不可注册 (code: 0)
不可注册原因: Domain exists输入： 查询我的域名 example.com 的详细信息
输出：
域名详情: example.com
========================================
注册者: 张三
组织: 某某科技有限公司
邮箱: admin@example.com
到期时间: 2026-12-31 23:59:59
注册时间: 2020-01-15 10:30:00
状态: 正常
域名验证: SUCCEED
实名认证: SUCCEED
邮箱验证: 已验证
WHOIS 保护: 关闭
DNS1: ns1.aliyun.com
DNS2: ns2.aliyun.com
实例ID: domain-cn-abc123xyz
域名类型: cTLD
距离到期: 1825 天
管理状态:
自动续费: 开启
转移锁: 关闭
更新锁: 关闭
资源组: rg-acfm363qrffqy6q输入： 列出我账户下的所有域名
输出：
域名列表 (共 5 个，第 1 页):
==================================================
• mycompany.com [到期: 2026-08-15] (状态: 正常) [审核: SUCCEED] [自动续费: 开启]
• mycompany.cn [到期: 2026-10-20] (状态: 正常) [审核: SUCCEED] [自动续费: 开启]
• mycompany.net [到期: 2026-05-30] (状态: 正常) [审核: SUCCEED] [自动续费: 关闭]
• testdomain.com [到期: 2025-12-01] (状态: 需要续费) [审核: FAILED] [自动续费: 关闭]
• demo-app.cn [到期: 2027-01-10] (状态: 正常) [审核: SUCCEED] [自动续费: 开启]输入： 帮我注册 newdomain2025.com，注册 2 年，使用模板 ID 12345
输出：
域名注册任务已提交!
==============================
任务编号: 12345678-ABCD-EFGH-1234-567890ABCDEF
任务状态: 0
⚠️ 请前往阿里云控制台完成支付和实名认证。注意事项： 创建订单前请务必先使用 check_domain 确认可注册性
git clone https://github.com/lzx3in/mcp-aliyun-domain
cd mcp-aliyun-domain
# 使用 pnpm（推荐）
pnpm install
pnpm dev # 使用 tsx 运行（开发模式）
pnpm build # 编译到 dist/ 目录
# 或使用 npm
npm install
npm run dev # 使用 tsx 运行（开发模式）
npm run build # 编译到 dist/ 目录项目使用 GitHub Actions 自动发布到 NPM 和 MCP Registry。推送 v* 标签即可触发自动发布流程：
# 1. 更新版本号（package.json 和 server.json 需保持一致）
# 2. 提交代码
git add -A && git commit -m "chore: bump version to x.y.z"
# 3. 打标签并推送
git tag vx.y.z && git push origin main --tags前置条件： 需在 npmjs.com 的包设置中配置 Trusted Publishers（推荐，无需存储 token）：
Provider: GitHub Actions
Organization: lzx3in
Repository: mcp-aliyun-domain
Workflow filename: publish.yml
MIT
通过阿里云检查域名是否可注册。返回可用性状态、是否溢价域名以及不可注册原因。
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| feePeriod | No | 注册年限（1-10年，默认1年） | |
| domainName | Yes | 要查询的域名，例如: example.com | |
| feeCommand | No | 操作类型: create（注册，默认）、renew（续费）、transfer（转入）、restore（恢复） |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It discloses the return values (availability, premium flag, reason) and mentions the source (Alibaba Cloud), but does not explicitly state that the operation is read‑only or non‑destructive. The behavioral context is adequate but not fully 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 a single sentence that efficiently conveys the purpose, the backend (Alibaba Cloud), and the return structure. Every word serves a purpose; no filler or redundancy.
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's simplicity (one required parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description covers the essential aspects: what it does, the provider, and key return fields. It could mention that the operation does not register or modify anything, but that is largely implied.
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?
All parameters are fully described in the input schema (100% coverage), so the description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema already provides. The description does not elaborate on parameter usage or constraints beyond the schema definitions.
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 the tool checks domain registration availability via Alibaba Cloud and specifies the returned information (status, premium flag, reasons for unavailability). It effectively distinguishes from sibling tools like query_domain_detail or create_order.
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 for checking domain availability but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives or when not to use it. No exclusions or alternative tool mentions are given.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
创建域名注册订单（警告：此操作涉及支付）。需要提供已创建的注册者模板ID。建议先使用 check_domain 确认可注册性。
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| dns1 | No | 主DNS服务器（默认: ns1.aliyun.com） | |
| dns2 | No | 副DNS服务器（默认: ns2.aliyun.com） | |
| period | Yes | 注册年限（1-10年） | |
| couponNo | No | 优惠券代码（可选） | |
| domainName | Yes | 要注册的域名 | |
| enableDomainProxy | No | 是否开启WHOIS隐私保护（默认关闭） | |
| registrantProfileId | Yes | 注册者模板ID（需先在阿里云控制台创建） |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It warns about payment involvement and the need for a registrant profile ID, but does not disclose post-order behavior, failure modes, or whether the operation is synchronous.
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?
Two sentences with no wasted words: first sentence states purpose and critical warning, second sentence lists prerequisite and suggestion. Front-loaded and efficient.
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 complexity (7 params, no output schema), the description is adequate but leaves gaps: no explanation of return value, payment process, or error handling. Sibling tools provide some context.
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 has 100% coverage, so baseline is 3. Description adds value by emphasizing the registrantProfileId must be pre-created and suggesting prior domain check, but does not elaborate on parameter values beyond the schema.
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 the tool's purpose: '创建域名注册订单' (create domain registration order). It distinguishes from siblings (check_domain, query_domain_detail, list_domains) by being the only order creation tool.
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 recommends first using check_domain to confirm registrability, providing a clear usage context. It implies when to use this tool, though lacks explicit exclusions or alternatives.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
列出阿里云账号下的所有域名，支持分页和关键词搜索。显示域名、到期时间、状态和审核信息。
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| keyWord | No | 搜索关键词，用于过滤域名 | |
| pageNum | No | 页码（默认1） | |
| pageSize | No | 每页数量（默认20，最大20） |
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 disclosure. It discloses the output fields (domain, expiration time, status, review info) and mentions pagination and filtering, but does not explicitly state that the operation is read-only, nor does it cover side effects, rate limits, or response structure beyond what is listed.
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 a single, well-structured sentence that front-loads the primary action and key features. Every word is meaningful, with no filler or redundancy. It is appropriately concise for the tool's simplicity.
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 lack of output schema, the description compensates by listing displayed fields (domain, expiration time, status, review info). It covers pagination and search, which are the main features. However, it omits details like total count, sorting, or response format, though these are somewhat implicit for a list operation.
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 100%, so baseline is 3. The description reiterates the purpose of pagination and keyword search, adding high-level context but not providing additional details beyond the schema's individual parameter descriptions (e.g., default values, max page size). No parameter semantics are clarified further.
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 the tool lists all domains under the Alibaba Cloud account, with explicit support for pagination and keyword search. It specifies the displayed fields (domain, expiration time, status, review info), making the purpose unambiguous and differentiating it from siblings that likely target individual domain details or other actions.
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 for domain listing scenarios but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool vs. siblings like check_domain or query_domain_detail. There are no when-not instructions or alternative recommendations, leaving the agent to infer context from the tool name and title alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
查询阿里云账号下指定域名的详细信息，包括注册者信息、到期时间、验证状态、DNS设置和管理状态等。
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| domainName | Yes | 要查询的域名，例如: example.com |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so description must disclose behavioral traits. It only lists returned data, omitting side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or error handling (e.g., what happens if domain not found). Does not indicate whether the operation is read-only or has impact.
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?
Single sentence, no redundancy, front-loaded with purpose and details. Every word adds value.
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 detail query with no output schema, description enumerates key data categories (registrant, expiration, verification, DNS, management status) that an agent would need. Lacks mention of possible response format or pagination, but given single parameter, it's nearly 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?
Schema coverage is 100%, with parameter description '要查询的域名，例如: example.com'. Description adds example but no additional semantics beyond what schema already provides. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate.
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?
Description clearly states the verb (query) and resource (domain detail), listing specific data fields (registrant info, expiration, verification, DNS, management status). It distinguishes from siblings: check_domain and list_domains differ in scope, create_order is unrelated.
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?
No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus siblings. The description implies usage for getting details of a specific domain, but does not provide alternatives or exclusion criteria. Given the tool's simplicity, it's adequate but not explicit.
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. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
v0.1.8check_domaincreate_orderlist_domainsquery_domain_detailScored across 4 tools
Each tool serves a distinct purpose: checking availability, querying details, listing owned, and creating orders. No overlap.
All tools follow a consistent verb_noun pattern in snake_case: check_domain, query_domain_detail, list_domains, create_order.
4 tools is reasonable for a focused domain management server, though slightly thin. Each tool contributes a core function.
Covers checking, querying, listing, and ordering domains, but lacks update, delete, or DNS management. Notable gaps for full lifecycle.
Unclaimed servers have limited discoverability.
If you are the server author, to access and configure the admin panel.
Domain search, registration, DNS, marketplace, and checkout with your AI agent.
Buy & manage domains from any AI chat: availability, register, DNS, email forwarding, AI bot stats.
Domain registration for AI agents via Stripe or x402 crypto with Cloudflare DNS.
Custom domains for SaaS and AI agents: search, register, connect DNS, and issue HTTPS over MCP.
We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.
curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/lzx3in/mcp-aliyun-domain'
If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server
