whois 조회를 위한 모델 컨텍스트 프로토콜 서버입니다.
이 MCP 서버를 사용하면 Claude Desktop, Cursor, Windsurf 등과 같은 AI 에이전트가 WHOIS 조회를 수행하고 도메인 세부 정보를 검색할 수 있습니다.
목적: AI에게 도메인 사용 가능 여부, 소유자, 등록일 및 기타 중요 정보를 직접 확인해 달라고 요청할 수 있습니다. 브라우저에서 검색할 필요가 없습니다.
WHOIS 조회란 무엇인가요? WHOIS 조회는 도메인 이름, IP 주소 또는 자율 시스템에 대한 등록 정보를 검색하기 위해 WHOIS 데이터베이스를 쿼리하는 프로세스입니다. WHOIS 조회를 통해 사용자는 도메인 소유자, 등록 날짜, 만료 날짜 및 기타 중요한 정보를 확인할 수 있습니다.
WHOIS 조회를 통해 어떤 정보를 얻을 수 있나요?
WHOIS 조회를 수행하면 다음과 같은 세부 정보를 검색할 수 있습니다.
도메인 이름 - 쿼리된 특정 도메인
등록자 이름 – 도메인 등록을 관리하는 회사(예: GoDaddy, Namecheap)
등록자 세부 정보 – 도메인 소유자의 이름, 조직 및 연락처 세부 정보(WHOIS 개인 정보 보호로 보호되지 않는 경우)
등록 및 만료일 – 도메인이 등록된 날짜와 만료되는 날짜
네임 서버 - 도메인이 사용하는 DNS 서버
도메인 상태 – 활성, 만료, 잠금 또는 삭제 보류
연락처 정보 – 관리, 기술 및 청구 연락처(숨겨지지 않은 경우)
Related MCP server: Domain Checker MCP Server
도구 | 설명 |
| 도메인에 대한 whois 정보를 조회합니다. |
| 최상위 도메인(TLD)에 대한 whois 정보 조회 |
| IP에 대한 whois 정보를 조회합니다. |
| 자율 시스템 번호(ASN)에 대한 whois 정보를 조회합니다. |
설치 - 글로벌
npx를 사용하여 MCP 서버를 실행합니다.
지엑스피1
커서 IDE에서
Cursor Settings > MCP 로 이동하세요
+ Add New MCP Server 클릭하세요
양식을 작성하세요:
이름: Whois Lookup (또는 원하는 이름)
유형: command
명령어: npx -y @mcp-server/whois-mcp@latest
설치 - 프로젝트별
프로젝트에 .cursor/mcp.json 파일을 추가합니다.
{
"mcpServers": {
"whois": {
"command": "npx",
"args": [
"-y",
"@mcp-server/whois-mcp@latest"
]
}
}
}용법
구성이 완료되면 Cursor AI Agent에서 whois 도구를 자동으로 사용할 수 있습니다. 다음 작업을 수행할 수 있습니다.
해당 도구는 MCP 설정의 Available Tools 에 나열됩니다.
관련성이 있는 경우 에이전트가 자동으로 이를 사용합니다.
에이전트에게 알림을 보내도록 명시적으로 요청할 수 있습니다.
Roo Code 설정에서 "MCP 설정 편집"을 클릭하거나 VS Code 명령 팔레트에서 "Roo Code: MCP 구성 열기" 명령을 사용하여 MCP 설정에 액세스합니다.
{
"mcpServers": {
"whois": {
"command": "npx",
"args": [
"-y",
"@mcp-server/whois-mcp@latest"
]
}
}
}whois 기능은 Roo Code의 AI 에이전트에서 사용할 수 있습니다.
# Install dependencies
pnpm install
# Build
pnpm build
서버를 디버깅하려면 MCP Inspector를 사용할 수 있습니다.
먼저 서버를 빌드하세요
pnpm build터미널에서 다음 명령을 실행하세요.
# Start MCP Inspector and server with all tools
npx @modelcontextprotocol/inspector node dist/index.jsMIT
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
