Skip to main content
Glama
simplebytes-com

DomainDetails MCP Server

by simplebytes-com
OverviewSchemaRelated ServersScoreDiscussions
JavaScript
Remote

Server Quality Checklist

67%
Profile completionA complete profile improves this server's visibility in search results.

  • Latest release: v1.2.0

  • Disambiguation5/5

    Only one tool exists, so there is no possibility of confusion. The tool's purpose is clearly stated and unique.

    Naming Consistency5/5

    The tool name 'domain_lookup' follows a clear, readable pattern and is appropriate for its function. With a single tool, there is no inconsistency.

    Tool Count4/5

    The server is focused on domain details lookup, and a single tool adequately covers this narrow scope. While the typical range is 3-15, the simplicity of the purpose justifies the minimal count, making it slightly under but reasonable.

    Completeness5/5

    The tool provides comprehensive domain information via RDAP with WHOIS fallback, covering registration, nameservers, contacts, and status. There are no obvious missing operations for a lookup-only service.

  • Average 3.8/5 across 1 of 1 tools scored.

    See the Tool Scores section below for per-tool breakdowns.

    • No community issues in the last 6 months
    • 0 commits in the last 12 weeks
    • No stable releases found
    • No critical vulnerability alerts
    • No high-severity vulnerability alerts
    • No code scanning findings
    • CI status not available

  • This repository is licensed under MIT License.

  • This repository includes a README.md file.

  • No tool usage detected in the last 30 days. Usage tracking helps demonstrate server value.

    Tip: use the "Try in Browser" feature on the server page to seed initial usage.

  • Add a glama.json file to provide metadata about your server.

  • If you are the author, simply .

    If the server belongs to an organization, first add glama.json to the root of your repository:

    {
  "$schema": "https://glama.ai/mcp/schemas/server.json",
  "maintainers": [
    "your-github-username"
  ]
}

    Then . Browse examples.

  • Add related servers to improve discoverability.

How to sync the server with GitHub?

Servers are automatically synced at least once per day, but you can also sync manually at any time to instantly update the server profile.

To manually sync the server, click the "Sync Server" button in the MCP server admin interface.

How is the quality score calculated?

The overall quality score combines two components: Tool Definition Quality (70%) and Server Coherence (30%).

Tool Definition Quality measures how well each tool describes itself to AI agents. Every tool is scored 1–5 across six dimensions: Purpose Clarity (25%), Usage Guidelines (20%), Behavioral Transparency (20%), Parameter Semantics (15%), Conciseness & Structure (10%), and Contextual Completeness (10%). The server-level definition quality score is calculated as 60% mean TDQS + 40% minimum TDQS, so a single poorly described tool pulls the score down.

Server Coherence evaluates how well the tools work together as a set, scoring four dimensions equally: Disambiguation (can agents tell tools apart?), Naming Consistency, Tool Count Appropriateness, and Completeness (are there gaps in the tool surface?).

Tiers are derived from the overall score: A (≥3.5), B (≥3.0), C (≥2.0), D (≥1.0), F (<1.0). B and above is considered passing.

Tool Scores

  • Behavior3/5

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

    With no annotations, the burden falls on the description. It discloses the use of RDAP and WHOIS and the type of information returned, which is useful. However, it doesn't describe error behavior (e.g., what happens if RDAP and WHOIS both fail), rate limits, or the raw response structure, leaving some behavioral uncertainty.

    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 compact two-sentence summary that front-loads the primary action and then lists key result categories. No redundant phrases or filler.

    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?

    The description covers the tool's core purpose and the main data categories returned, which is sufficient for a three-parameter lookup tool. It falls short of explaining potential failure modes or the exact shape of the output, but given the absence of an output schema and the simplicity of the operation, this is a minor 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?

    All three parameters are well-described in the schema (domain, include_raw, prefer_whois) with clear documentation. The description adds context by explaining the fallback mechanism, which indirectly clarifies the purpose of prefer_whois, but this is marginal beyond the schema. Since schema coverage is 100%, the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

    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?

    The description clearly states the function with the verb 'Look up' and specifies the resource as 'domain information.' It distinguishes the method by naming RDAP and WHOIS fallback, and lists the types of details returned (registration, nameservers, contacts, status). This is specific and aligns with the tool name.

    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?

    No explicit usage guidance is provided. There are no sibling tools to compare with, and the description doesn't state when to choose this tool over alternatives or when not to use it. The context implies it's for domain lookups, but the fallback behavior and parameter options (include_raw, prefer_whois) are not framed as decision points.

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

GitHub Badge

Glama performs regular codebase and documentation scans to:

  • Confirm that the MCP server is working as expected.
  • Confirm that there are no obvious security issues.
  • Evaluate tool definition quality.

Our badge communicates server capabilities, safety, and installation instructions.

Card Badge

domaindetails-mcp MCP server

Copy to your README.md:

Score Badge

domaindetails-mcp MCP server

Copy to your README.md:

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/simplebytes-com/domaindetails-mcp'

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