用于 whois 查询的模型上下文协议服务器。
该 MCP 服务器允许 Claude Desktop、Cursor、Windsurf 等 AI 代理执行 WHOIS 查找并检索域详细信息。
**用途：**您可以直接让人工智能检查域名是否可用、所有者、注册时间以及其他重要信息。无需打开浏览器进行搜索。
什么是 WHOIS 查询？ WHOIS 查询是指查询 WHOIS 数据库以获取域名、IP 地址或自治系统的注册详细信息的过程。它可以帮助用户查找域名所有者、注册时间、到期时间以及其他重要信息。
WHOIS 查询可以提供哪些信息？
当您执行 WHOIS 查询时，您可以检索如下详细信息：
域名 – 查询的具体域名
注册商名称 – 管理域名注册的公司（例如 GoDaddy、Namecheap）
注册人详细信息 – 域名所有者的姓名、组织和联系方式（除非受 WHOIS 隐私保护）
注册和到期日期 – 域名注册时间和到期时间
名称服务器 – 域正在使用的 DNS 服务器
域名状态 – 有效、已过期、已锁定或待删除
联系信息 – 管理、技术和计费联系人（如果未隐藏）
Related MCP server: Domain Checker MCP Server
工具 | 描述 |
| 查找域名的 whois 信息 |
| 查找有关顶级域名 (TLD) 的 whois 信息 |
| 查找有关 IP 的 whois 信息 |
| 查找有关自治系统编号 (ASN) 的 whois 信息 |
安装 - 全球
使用 npx 运行 MCP 服务器：
npx -y @mcp-server/whois-mcp@latest在你的 Cursor IDE 中
前往Cursor Settings > MCP
点击+ Add New MCP Server
填写表格：
名称： Whois Lookup （或您喜欢的任何名称）
类型： command
命令： npx -y @mcp-server/whois-mcp@latest
安装 - 特定于项目
将.cursor/mcp.json文件添加到您的项目：
{
"mcpServers": {
"whois": {
"command": "npx",
"args": [
"-y",
"@mcp-server/whois-mcp@latest"
]
}
}
}用法
配置完成后，whois 工具将自动提供给 Cursor AI 代理。您可以：
该工具将在 MCP 设置中的Available Tools下列出
代理将在相关时自动使用它
您可以明确要求代理发送通知
通过单击 Roo Code 设置中的“编辑 MCP 设置”或使用 VS Code 命令面板中的“Roo Code：打开 MCP 配置”命令来访问 MCP 设置。
{
"mcpServers": {
"whois": {
"command": "npx",
"args": [
"-y",
"@mcp-server/whois-mcp@latest"
]
}
}
}Roo Code 的 AI 代理将可以使用 whois 功能
# Install dependencies
pnpm install
# Build
pnpm build
要调试您的服务器，您可以使用MCP Inspector 。
首先搭建服务器
pnpm build在终端中运行以下命令：
# Start MCP Inspector and server with all tools
npx @modelcontextprotocol/inspector node dist/index.js麻省理工学院
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
