rdap-mcp
Click on "Deploy Server".
Wait a few minutes for the server to deploy. Once ready, it will show a "Started" state.
In the chat, type
@followed by the MCP server name and your instructions, e.g., "@rdap-mcplook up registration data for example.com"
That's it! The server will respond to your query, and you can continue using it as needed.
Here is a step-by-step guide with screenshots.
RDAP MCP Server
A simple Model Context Protocol (MCP) server that provides RDAP (Registration Data Access Protocol) domain lookup capabilities.
Features
Pure RDAP: Uses the modern RDAP protocol for structured domain data
Registry Detection: Automatically detects the correct RDAP server for any TLD
Comprehensive Coverage: Supports 50+ TLDs including gTLDs and ccTLDs
Lightweight: Minimal dependencies, RDAP-only (no WHOIS fallback)
Easy Integration: Works with any MCP-compatible client
Related MCP server: dns-intel
Installation
npm install rdap-mcpOr use directly with npx:
npx rdap-mcpUsage
Option 1: Local Installation (Recommended)
Add to your Claude Desktop configuration file:
MacOS: ~/Library/Application Support/Claude/claude_desktop_config.json
Windows: %APPDATA%\Claude\claude_desktop_config.json
{
"mcpServers": {
"rdap": {
"command": "npx",
"args": ["-y", "rdap-mcp"]
}
}
}Option 2: Hosted Version
This server is also available as a hosted service at mcp.domaindetails.com for HTTP-based integrations:
GET https://mcp.domaindetails.com/lookup/{domain}
POST https://mcp.domaindetails.com/mcp/call-toolThe hosted version runs on Cloudflare Workers for global low-latency access. Use the local version for Claude Desktop and the hosted version for custom HTTP integrations.
Available Tools
rdap_lookup
Look up domain information using the RDAP protocol.
Parameters:
domain(string, required): The domain name to look up (e.g., example.com)include_raw(boolean, optional): If true, include raw RDAP response data
Example Response:
{
"domain": "example.com",
"found": true,
"method": "rdap",
"timestamp": "2025-01-21T10:30:00Z",
"status": ["client transfer prohibited"],
"nameservers": ["ns1.example.com", "ns2.example.com"],
"rdap": {
"registration_date": "1995-08-14T04:00:00Z",
"expiration_date": "2025-08-13T04:00:00Z",
"contacts": [...],
"dnssec": {...}
}
}Supported TLDs
The server includes built-in registry detection for 50+ TLDs:
Generic TLDs: com, net, org, info, biz, name, pro, xyz, top, site, online, tech, store, app, dev, io, ai, co, me, tv, cc
Country Code TLDs: uk, ca, au, de, fr, nl, be, ch, at, it, es, se, no, dk, fi, ie, pl, cz, sk, hu, ro, bg, hr, si, lv, lt, ee
For unsupported TLDs, the server will attempt to fetch registry information from IANA's bootstrap service.
Development
# Clone repository
git clone https://github.com/simplebytes-com/rdap-mcp.git
cd rdap-mcp
# Install dependencies
npm install
# Build
npm run build
# Test locally
node build/index.jsLicense
MIT
Related Projects
domaindetails-mcp - Full-featured domain research toolkit with RDAP, WHOIS, and more
DomainDetails.com - Full-featured domain research SaaS
Available Tools
1 toolrdap_lookupA
Look up domain information using the RDAP (Registration Data Access Protocol). Provides structured domain registration details, nameservers, contacts, and status information.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| domain | Yes | The domain name to look up (e.g., example.com) | |
| include_raw | No | If true, include raw RDAP response data in the result |
TDQS
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 indicates a read-only lookup but does not disclose potential rate limits, authentication requirements, or behavior on invalid domains.
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?
Two concise sentences with no unnecessary words. The first sentence front-loads the core action and resource, making it efficient for an agent to parse.
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?
For a simple lookup tool with two parameters and no output schema, the description adequately covers the purpose and output scope. It could mention that it is a read-only operation, but overall it is well-rounded for the complexity.
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?
Both parameters are described in the schema (100% coverage). The description adds context about the output fields (e.g., nameservers, contacts) but does not enhance understanding of the parameter semantics beyond the 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 verb 'look up' and the resource 'domain information' using RDAP, and lists what is provided (registration details, nameservers, contacts, status). No sibling tools exist, so differentiation is not needed.
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 implies usage for retrieving domain registration data but does not specify when to use this tool over alternatives (e.g., WHOIS) or mention any prerequisites or restrictions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Tool Schema Changelog
Recent tool additions, removals, and schema changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
1 tool update
v1.0.0- First observed
rdap_lookup
TDQS
Scored across 1 tool
Only one tool exists, so there is no ambiguity whatsoever.
The single tool follows a clear verb_noun convention (rdap_lookup), which is consistent.
For a focused domain lookup server, one tool is appropriate and well-scoped.
The single tool fully covers the server's purpose of performing RDAP lookups; no gaps exist.
Maintenance
Related MCP Connectors
Normalized JSON for any domain across 1,200+ TLDs, reading WHOIS where no RDAP server exists.
Free, keyless domain registration lookup via RDAP: registered, available, registrar, expiration.
Check domain name availability via RDAP. Single, bulk, and smart suggestions. No API key needed.
Domain availability over RDAP, watchlists with daily checks, change history and email alerts.
Related MCP Servers
- AlicenseAqualityFmaintenanceProvides comprehensive domain research tools including RDAP, WHOIS, and DNS lookup capabilities, with automatic fallback and support for 50+ TLDs.110 npm1MIT
- FlicenseNot gradedqualityDmaintenanceEnables domain intelligence lookups including RDAP registration data, DNS records, and Certificate Transparency searches.1-
- AlicenseNot gradedqualityCmaintenanceEnables RDAP domain lookup via ICANN standard, free, no authentication required.5 npmMIT
- AlicenseAqualityCmaintenanceEnables fast domain availability checking via hybrid DNS and RDAP/WHOIS verification, with support for bulk queries and automatic name expansion across popular TLDs.325 npmMIT