Skip to main content
Glama
paulet4a-commits

WebDataTools Domain & website intelligence MCP server

by paulet4a-commits
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
JavaScript
Remote

domain_whois_rdap

Look up WHOIS/RDAP details for one or many domains to retrieve registrar, registration and expiry dates, domain age, nameservers, DNSSEC, and status codes without an API key.

Instructions

Bulk domain WHOIS lookup via the official RDAP protocol — registrar, registration/expiry dates, domain age, nameservers, DNSSEC and status codes for any domain, no API key, no rate limits. Billed to your own Apify account: ~$0.003 per Domain (Apify free-plan price, lower on paid plans).

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
domainsYesDomains — Enter one domain per line, e.g. github.com. A full URL such as https://github.com/apify also works — the path, protocol and www. prefix are stripped automatically. Example: ["github.com"].
includeRawEventsNoInclude raw RDAP events — Keep this on to also store the raw, unparsed RDAP events array (registration, last-changed, expiration, transfer, etc.) alongside the parsed date fields, useful when a registry publishes an event type this Actor does not map to a named field.
includeNameserversNoInclude nameservers — Keep this on to list every nameserver RDAP returns for the domain in the nameservers field. Turn it off to skip that field and leave it null, which slightly shrinks the output.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

A4/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does unusually well: it discloses the protocol (official RDAP), the absence of API keys/rate limits, and the billing model (~$0.003 per domain, charged to the caller's Apify account). It does not describe failure behavior for malformed or unregistered domains, which keeps it below 5.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence pairs the action and the payload fields before appending cost/limit facts. No filler, no restatement of the name.

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

Completeness4/5

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

No output schema or annotations exist, and the description compensates by enumerating the returned fields and the billing model. It stops short of explaining error handling or output mass/volume expectations for large domain lists, which would fully close the gap.

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%, so the schema already documents all three parameters in depth (URL/path stripping, raw events, nameserver toggling). The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema provides, making baseline 3 correct.

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

Purpose5/5

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

States a specific verb (bulk lookup), resource (domain WHOIS/RDAP registration data), and enumerates the exact fields returned (registrar, registration/expiry dates, domain age, nameservers, DNSSEC, status codes). This is clearly distinguishable from siblings like subdomain_finder or domain_security_audit, which cover different resources.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

Usage is implied (fetch registration data for domains in bulk) and the operational constraints ('no API key, no rate limits') are stated, but there is no explicit when-to-use vs. sibling guidance — e.g. no pointer that domain_security_audit or dns_email_security_checker are alternatives when the goal is security rather than registration metadata.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools