Skip to main content
Glama

whois_domain

Retrieve domain registration details including ownership, registration dates, and availability status through WHOIS lookups.

Instructions

Looksup whois information about the domain

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
domainYes

Implementation Reference

  • src/index.ts:11-29 (registration)
    Registers the 'whois_domain' MCP tool with description, Zod input schema {domain: z.string().min(1)}, and an async handler that calls whoisDomain(domain) from 'whoiser' package, formats the result as text content or error.
    server.tool(
      'whois_domain',
      'Looksup whois information about the domain',
      { domain: z.string().min(1) },
      async ({ domain }) => {
        try {
          const result = await whoisDomain(domain);
          return {
            content: [{ type: 'text', text: `Domain whois lookup for: \n${JSON.stringify(result)}` }],
          };
        } catch (err: unknown) {
          const error = err as Error;
          return {
            content: [{ type: 'text', text: `Error: ${error.message}` }],
            isError: true
          };
        }
      }
    );
  • The handler function for the whois_domain tool. It performs a WHOIS lookup using the external whoisDomain function and returns the result as structured text content or an error response.
    async ({ domain }) => {
      try {
        const result = await whoisDomain(domain);
        return {
          content: [{ type: 'text', text: `Domain whois lookup for: \n${JSON.stringify(result)}` }],
        };
      } catch (err: unknown) {
        const error = err as Error;
        return {
          content: [{ type: 'text', text: `Error: ${error.message}` }],
          isError: true
        };
      }
    }
  • Input schema for the whois_domain tool using Zod: requires a non-empty string 'domain'.
    { domain: z.string().min(1) },

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.

  1. First observed

TDQS

C2.8/5.0
Behavior2/5

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 states the action ('looksup') but doesn't describe what information is returned, potential rate limits, error conditions, or authentication requirements. This leaves significant gaps for a tool that presumably queries external WHOIS data.

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?

The description is a single, efficient sentence with zero wasted words. It's appropriately sized for a simple lookup tool and front-loads the essential information.

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

Completeness2/5

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

For a tool with no annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema description coverage, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what WHOIS information is returned, how results are structured, or any behavioral constraints. The agent would struggle to use this tool effectively without additional context.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters2/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The schema has 0% description coverage, so the single 'domain' parameter is completely undocumented in the schema. The description mentions 'domain' but provides no additional semantics about what constitutes a valid domain (e.g., format examples, TLD requirements, handling of subdomains). This doesn't adequately compensate for the schema gap.

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 verb ('looksup') and resource ('whois information about the domain'), making the purpose understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly distinguish this tool from its siblings (whois_as, whois_ip, whois_tld) beyond the domain focus, which prevents a perfect score.

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 its siblings. It doesn't mention alternatives like whois_ip for IP addresses or whois_as for autonomous systems, leaving the agent to infer usage from the tool name alone.

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/modelcontextprotocol-servers/whois-mcp'

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