net-mcp

Local Whois

local_whois

Perform whois lookups for domains, IP addresses, or ASNs directly from the local machine. Retrieve registration, allocation, or ASN details without needing admin privileges.

Instructions

Run a whois lookup from the local machine.

Queries the appropriate whois server for domain registration, IP allocation, or ASN information. Does not require admin privileges.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`query`	Yes	Domain, IP address, or ASN (e.g. 'cloudflare.com', '1.1.1.1', 'AS13335')

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`note`	No	Additional context about the result
`error`	No	Why the tool could not produce a result: input validation failure, tool disabled by configuration, binary not installed, or no service answered. Empty when the command executed.
`stderr`	Yes	Standard error of the command, or the failure message when the command did not run
`stdout`	Yes	Standard output of the command (curl output is capped at 10,000 characters)
`command`	Yes	The exact command line that was executed, or the tool name if the command never ran
`success`	Yes	True when the command ran and exited with status 0
`platform`	Yes	Operating system the command ran on (Darwin, Linux or Windows)
`returncode`	Yes	Process exit status. 0 = success; 2 = input rejected before running; 124 = timed out; 126 = disabled by config or permission denied; 127 = binary not found

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Sep 22, 2026

TDQS

A3.8/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. It usefully discloses that it runs from the local machine, queries the appropriate whois server, and does not require admin privileges. It does not mention network dependency, possible timeouts, or raw output shape, though the output schema partially covers return behavior.

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 compact and front-loaded: the action appears in the first sentence, followed only by useful qualifications. No filler or redundant detail.

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?

For a one-parameter lookup tool with an output schema, the description is nearly complete: it states the action, query scope, local execution, and privilege requirements. The only gap is lack of explicit routing guidance toward or away from sibling tools, which is a minor omission here.

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 coverage is 100% and the query parameter already includes concrete examples and accepted formats. The description restates domain/IP/ASN scope but adds no significant meaning beyond the schema.

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 uses a specific verb ('Run a whois lookup') and names exactly what it covers: domain registration, IP allocation, and ASN information. The 'from the local machine' scoping helps distinguish it from remote/API-based siblings like peeringdb_network or bgp_asn_info.

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?

It clearly implies when to use it—when whois data for a domain, IP, or ASN is needed. However, it does not explicitly contrast with related tools such as irr_route_lookup or peeringdb_network, nor does it state when not to use this tool.

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