whois 検索用のモデル コンテキスト プロトコルサーバー。
この MCP サーバーにより、Claude Desktop、Cursor、Windsurf などの AI エージェントが WHOIS 検索を実行し、ドメインの詳細を取得できるようになります。
**目的：**ドメインが利用可能かどうか、所有者は誰か、いつ登録されたかなど、重要な情報をAIに直接確認させることができます。ブラウザで検索する必要はありません。
WHOIS検索とは？ WHOIS検索とは、WHOISデータベースに問い合わせて、ドメイン名、IPアドレス、または自律システムに関する登録情報を取得するプロセスです。これにより、ユーザーはドメインの所有者、登録日、有効期限、その他の重要な情報を知ることができます。
WHOIS 検索ではどのような情報が得られますか?
WHOIS 検索を実行すると、次のような詳細を取得できます。
ドメイン名 – 照会された特定のドメイン
レジストラ名 – ドメイン登録を管理する会社（例：GoDaddy、Namecheap）
登録者の詳細 – ドメイン所有者の名前、組織、連絡先の詳細（WHOISプライバシーによって保護されていない場合）
登録日と有効期限 – ドメインが登録された日と有効期限
ネームサーバー – ドメインが使用しているDNSサーバー
ドメインのステータス – アクティブ、期限切れ、ロック、または削除保留中
連絡先情報 – 管理、技術、請求に関する連絡先（非表示になっていない場合）
Related MCP server: Domain Checker MCP Server
道具 | 説明 |
| ドメインのwhois情報を検索する |
| トップレベルドメイン（TLD）のwhois情報を検索する |
| IPのwhois情報を検索する |
| 自律システム番号 (ASN) に関する whois 情報を検索する |
インストール - グローバル
npx を使用して MCP サーバーを実行します。
npx -y @mcp-server/whois-mcp@latestカーソルIDEで
Cursor Settings > MCPへ移動します。
+ Add New MCP Serverクリック
フォームに記入してください:
名前: Whois Lookup (または任意の名前)
タイプ: command
コマンド: npx -y @mcp-server/whois-mcp@latest
インストール - プロジェクト固有
プロジェクトに.cursor/mcp.jsonファイルを追加します。
{
"mcpServers": {
"whois": {
"command": "npx",
"args": [
"-y",
"@mcp-server/whois-mcp@latest"
]
}
}
}使用法
設定が完了すると、whoisツールはCursor AI Agentで自動的に利用できるようになります。以下のことが可能です。
ツールはMCP設定のAvailable Toolsの下に表示されます。
エージェントは関連する場合に自動的にそれを使用します
エージェントに通知を送信するよう明示的に指示することができます
Roo Code 設定で「MCP 設定の編集」をクリックするか、VS Code のコマンド パレットで「Roo Code: MCP 構成を開く」コマンドを使用して、MCP 設定にアクセスします。
{
"mcpServers": {
"whois": {
"command": "npx",
"args": [
"-y",
"@mcp-server/whois-mcp@latest"
]
}
}
}whois機能はRoo CodeのAIエージェントで利用可能になる。
# Install dependencies
pnpm install
# Build
pnpm build
サーバーをデバッグするには、 MCP Inspectorを使用できます。
まずサーバーを構築する
pnpm buildターミナルで次のコマンドを実行します。
# Start MCP Inspector and server with all tools
npx @modelcontextprotocol/inspector node dist/index.jsマサチューセッツ工科大学
Looksup whois information about the Autonomous System Number (ASN)
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| asn | Yes |
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. It mentions the action ('looksup') but doesn't describe what the lookup entails (e.g., data sources, rate limits, authentication needs, or response format). For a lookup tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its behavior.
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, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It is appropriately sized and front-loaded, making it easy to parse quickly.
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 complexity (a lookup operation), lack of annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't cover behavioral aspects like data sources, error handling, or return values, which are crucial for an agent to use the tool effectively in 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?
The schema description coverage is 0%, but the description adds minimal value by implying the parameter is an ASN. However, it doesn't explain the ASN format (e.g., 'AS12345') or provide examples, which the schema's pattern does. With one parameter and low coverage, the description partially compensates but not fully.
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 action ('looksup') and resource ('whois information about the Autonomous System Number (ASN)'), making the tool's function immediately understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like whois_domain, whois_ip, and whois_tld, which would require mentioning it specifically handles ASNs rather than domains, IPs, or TLDs.
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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus its siblings (whois_domain, whois_ip, whois_tld), nor does it mention any prerequisites, exclusions, or alternative contexts. It simply states what the tool does without indicating appropriate usage scenarios.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Looksup whois information about the domain
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| domain | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states the action ('looksup whois information') but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like rate limits, authentication needs, error conditions, or what specific whois information is returned. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this is inadequate.
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?
Extremely concise - a single sentence with zero waste. Front-loaded with the core action. Every word earns its place, though this conciseness contributes to gaps in other dimensions.
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 zero annotation coverage, no output schema, and low schema description coverage, the description is incomplete. It states the basic purpose but lacks crucial context about behavior, parameters, and results needed for effective tool use. For a whois lookup tool, more detail about return values and constraints would be expected.
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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It mentions 'domain' but provides no semantic context beyond what's in the schema (a required string). No details on domain format (e.g., TLD requirements, validation), examples, or constraints are given. The description adds minimal value over the bare 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: 'Looksup whois information about the domain' - a specific verb ('looksup') and resource ('whois information about the domain'). It doesn't explicitly differentiate from siblings (whois_as, whois_ip, whois_tld), but the domain focus is implied. Not tautological with the name 'whois_domain'.
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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description doesn't mention sibling tools or provide context for choosing domain lookups over AS, IP, or TLD lookups. Usage is implied by the domain parameter but not explicitly stated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Looksup whois information about the IP
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| ip | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It mentions 'whois information' but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like whether this is a read-only query, potential rate limits, authentication needs, or what the output format might be. The description is too vague to provide adequate transparency for a tool with no annotations.
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, straightforward sentence that is front-loaded with the core action. It's appropriately sized for a simple tool, though the typo ('looksup') slightly detracts from clarity. There's no wasted text, but it could be more polished.
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 no annotations, no output schema, and low schema description coverage (0%), the description is incomplete. It lacks details on behavioral aspects, output expectations, and usage context relative to siblings. For a tool with these gaps, the description should provide more comprehensive guidance to be effective.
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?
The schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It implies the 'ip' parameter is for looking up whois information, but doesn't add meaning beyond what the schema's format hints (IPv4/IPv6) provide. The description is minimal and doesn't explain parameter usage, constraints, or examples, resulting in a baseline score.
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 verb ('looksup') and resource ('whois information about the IP'), making the purpose understandable. It distinguishes from siblings by specifying IP lookup rather than AS, domain, or TLD lookups. However, 'looksup' contains a typo and could be more precise about what 'whois information' entails.
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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus the sibling tools (whois_as, whois_domain, whois_tld). It implies usage for IPs but doesn't specify alternatives or exclusions, such as when to choose this over other whois tools based on input type.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Looksup whois information about the Top Level Domain (TLD)
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| tld | Yes |
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. It only states what the tool does without mentioning any behavioral traits such as rate limits, authentication needs, error handling, or response format. This is inadequate for a tool with no annotation coverage.
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, efficient sentence that gets straight to the point without unnecessary words. It's front-loaded with the core purpose, though it could be slightly more structured by including basic usage hints.
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 no annotations, 0% schema description coverage, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks details on behavior, parameters, and return values, making it insufficient for an agent to use the tool effectively without additional 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?
The schema description coverage is 0%, and the description doesn't add any parameter details beyond implying the 'tld' parameter is required. It doesn't explain what a TLD is, provide examples (e.g., '.com', '.org'), or discuss format constraints, leaving the parameter poorly documented.
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 action ('looks up') and resource ('whois information about the Top Level Domain (TLD)'), making the tool's function immediately understandable. It doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'whois_domain' or 'whois_ip', but the focus on TLDs provides some implicit distinction.
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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'whois_domain' or 'whois_ip'. The description implies it's for TLDs specifically, but doesn't clarify use cases, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage context.
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.
whois_aswhois_domainwhois_ipwhois_tldEach tool has a clearly distinct purpose targeting different types of whois lookups: ASN, domain, IP, and TLD. The descriptions explicitly differentiate the input types, leaving no ambiguity about which tool to use for each query.
All tools follow a perfect 'whois_' prefix pattern with consistent suffix naming (as, domain, ip, tld). This creates a predictable and readable naming convention throughout the toolset.
Four tools is ideal for a whois lookup server, covering the main entity types (ASN, domain, IP, TLD) without being too sparse or bloated. Each tool serves a specific, necessary function in the domain.
The toolset provides complete coverage for whois lookups across all major internet resource types. There are no obvious gaps - agents can query ASNs, domains, IPs, and TLDs, which represents comprehensive functionality for this domain.
Unclaimed servers have limited discoverability.
If you are the server author, to access and configure the admin panel.
Domain intel for AI agents: RDAP registration, DNS, email deliverability, tech stack.
Domain intel for AI agents: RDAP registration, DNS, email deliverability, tech stack.
Domain search, registration, DNS, marketplace, and checkout with your AI agent.
The web capability layer for AI agents: render, extract, DNS, SSL, WHOIS & more via x402.
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
