Skip to main content
Glama

get_domain_info

Retrieve domain details including expiry date, nameservers, WHOIS contacts, privacy and lock status from the Dynadot registrar.

Instructions

Get detailed information about a domain including expiry date, nameservers, WHOIS contacts, privacy status, lock status, and more.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
domainYesDomain name to query (e.g., 'example.com')

Implementation Reference

  • The MCP tool registration and handler implementation for 'get_domain_info'.
    // ─── get_domain_info ──────────────────────────────────────────
    
    server.tool(
      "get_domain_info",
      "Get detailed information about a domain including expiry date, nameservers, " +
        "WHOIS contacts, privacy status, lock status, and more.",
      {
        domain: z.string().describe("Domain name to query (e.g., 'example.com')"),
      },
      async ({ domain }) => {
        try {
          const result = await client.getDomainInfo(domain);
          return {
            content: [
              { type: "text" as const, text: JSON.stringify(result, null, 2) },
            ],
          };
        } catch (error) {
          const msg = error instanceof Error ? error.message : String(error);
          return {
            content: [
              { type: "text" as const, text: `Failed to get domain info: ${msg}` },
            ],
            isError: true,
          };
        }
      }
    );
  • The underlying Dynadot client method that executes the API call to fetch domain info.
    async getDomainInfo(domain: string): Promise<DynadotResponse> {
      return this.call("domain_info", { domain });
    }
Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. While 'Get' implies a read operation, the description doesn't address important behavioral aspects like authentication requirements, rate limits, error conditions, whether this performs a live WHOIS lookup or returns cached data, or what happens with invalid domains. The list of included information is helpful but incomplete for behavioral transparency.

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?

The description is a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose ('Get detailed information about a domain') followed by specific examples of what information is included. There's no wasted verbiage, though it could be slightly more structured by separating the purpose from the information list.

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

Completeness3/5

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

For a single-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description provides adequate but incomplete context. It specifies what information is returned but not the format, structure, or completeness of that information. Given the lack of annotations and output schema, a more complete description would address authentication, rate limits, and response format to better guide the agent.

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% (the single 'domain' parameter has a clear description with an example), so the baseline is 3. The tool description doesn't add any parameter semantics beyond what the schema already provides - it mentions the domain concept but doesn't clarify format requirements, validation rules, or edge cases beyond the schema's 'e.g., example.com'.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Get detailed information about a domain' with specific examples of what information is included (expiry date, nameservers, WHOIS contacts, etc.). It uses a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('domain'), though it doesn't explicitly distinguish from similar sibling tools like 'get_account_info' or 'get_auction_details' beyond the domain focus.

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

Usage Guidelines2/5

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

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With many sibling tools that also retrieve information (e.g., 'get_dns', 'get_nameservers', 'list_domains'), there's no indication of when this comprehensive domain info tool is preferred over more specific ones or how it differs from 'search_domain'.

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

Install Server

Other Tools

Latest Blog Posts

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/mikusnuz/dynadot-mcp'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server