Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
mambalabsdev

WHOIS Domain Lookup MCP Server

by mambalabsdev
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
JavaScript
Remote

Look up domain WHOIS and RDAP records

lookup_domain_whois
Read-onlyIdempotent

Look up domain registration data including registrar, creation date, expiry date, domain age, status codes, nameservers, and registrant details via registry RDAP or WHOIS.

Instructions

Look up who registered a domain, when, and when it expires. Give domains, website URLs, or email addresses (up to 5,000). For each registrable domain the actor asks the registry's own RDAP server (from the IANA list), or its port 43 WHOIS server where there is no RDAP, and returns one row: registered true or false, registrar, created_at, updated_at, expires_at, domain_age_days, days_until_expiry, status codes, nameservers, dnssec, and the registrant organization and country where the registry publishes them. Rows with no dates published, error rows, and input that is not a domain come back free with a row_status saying so. A run that does not succeed is returned as an error with its run ID. Read-only; requires an APIFY_TOKEN; Apify charges per domain lookup.

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
domainNoOne domain, URL, or email address, for example stripe.com.
domainsNoDomains, website URLs, or email addresses, up to 5,000. Subdomains are looked up as their registrable domain.
include_rawNotrue puts the registry's raw RDAP JSON or WHOIS text in raw_response. Default false.
max_charge_usdNoOptional. The run stops before a charge would pass this amount.
follow_registrar_rdapNotrue (default) also reads the registrar's RDAP record for the abuse email and any registrant details it publishes.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv1.0.0

TDQS

A4.4/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already declare read-only/idempotent/open-world, and the description adds substantial context beyond them: it requires an APIFY_TOKEN, Apify charges per domain lookup, max_charge_usd caps spend, non-success runs return an error with a run ID, and unpriced/failed/invalid rows come back free with a row_status. This is exactly the sort of cost and failure-mode disclosure an agent needs before calling.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Front-loaded with purpose, then progressively deepens into sources, return fields, and cost behavior — good information ordering. It is dense with long clauses (the return-field list is a long run-on), but nearly every sentence earns its place.

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

Completeness5/5

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

With no output schema, the description carries the full burden of explaining returns and does so thoroughly: it enumerates the row fields (registered flag, registrar, timestamps, age, expiry, status codes, nameservers, dnssec, registrant org/country) and describes row_status for degenerate rows. Nothing material is missing for correct invocation.

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 description coverage is 100%, so every parameter (domain, domains, include_raw, max_charge_usd, follow_registrar_rdap) is already documented. The description reinforces the 5,000 cap and the RDAP/WHOIS source selection but adds no syntax or format detail the schema lacks; baseline 3 applies.

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?

Opens with a specific verb and resource ('Look up who registered a domain, when, and when it expires') and then names the underlying data sources (registry RDAP from the IANA list, port 43 WHOIS fallback). An agent knows exactly what this tool produces without opening the schema.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

Conveys clear usage context: accepts domains, website URLs, or email addresses, up to 5,000 at a time, and subdomains are normalized to their registrable domain. There are no sibling tools to differentiate against, but it doesn't state when *not* to use it (e.g., bulk-vs-single tradeoffs, or when a cheaper alternative exists).

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools