Lookup-Domain
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., "@Lookup-Domainlookup google.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.
域名查询服务 Lookup Domain
一个提供全面域名研究工具(包括RDAP、WHOIS和DNS查询功能)的模型上下文协议(MCP)服务器。 A Model Context Protocol (MCP) server that provides comprehensive domain name research tools, including RDAP, WHOIS, and DNS query functionality.## 工具列表 Tool List
本MCP服务封装下列工具,可让模型通过标准化接口调用以下功能。 本MCP服务封装下列工具,可让模型通过标准化接口调用以下功能。
工具 Tool | 描述 Description |
domain_lookup | Look up domain information using RDAP protocol with WHOIS fallback. Provides comprehensive domain registration details, nameservers, contacts, and status information. |
检查服务 ## Inspector
工具在线测试: https://mcp.xiaobenyang.com/inspector/1777316659800067
Online Tool test https://mcp.xiaobenyang.com/inspector/1777316659800067
Related MCP server: Domain Tools MCP Server
服务配置 MCP Server Config
如何获取 XBY-APIKEY ? How to get XBY-APIKEY ?
访问小笨羊科技网站 https://xiaobenyang.com,注册用户即可获得APIKEY Visit XiaoBenYang website https://xiaobenyang.com, register and get the APIKEY.
SSE
{
"mcpServers": {
"域名查询服务": {
"headers": {
"XBY-APIKEY": "<YOUR_XBY_APIKEY>"
},
"type": "sse",
"url": "https://mcp.xiaobenyang.com/1777316659800067/sse"
}
}
}STREAMABLE HTTP
{
"mcpServers": {
"域名查询服务": {
"headers": {
"XBY-APIKEY": "<YOUR_XBY_APIKEY>"
},
"type": "streamable_http",
"url": "https://mcp.xiaobenyang.com/1777316659800067/mcp"
}
}
}STDIO
{
"mcpServers": {
"域名查询服务": {
"command": "npx",
"args": [
"-y",
"xiaobenyang-mcp"
],
"env": {
"XBY_APIKEY": "<YOUR_XBY_APIKEY>",
"mcpId": "1777316659800067",
},
"transport": "stdio"
}
}
}
Available Tools
1 tooldomain_lookupdomain_lookupA
Look up domain information using RDAP protocol with WHOIS fallback. Provides comprehensive domain registration details, nameservers, contacts, and status information.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| domain | Yes | ||
| prefer_whois | No | ||
| include_raw | No |
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 of behavioral disclosure. It mentions the protocols (RDAP with WHOIS fallback) and the type of information returned, but does not cover critical aspects like rate limits, authentication requirements, error handling, or whether the operation is read-only or has side effects. This leaves significant gaps for a tool that likely interacts with external services.
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 front-loaded and efficiently structured in two sentences, with no wasted words. Each sentence adds value: the first explains the action and protocols, and the second specifies the returned information, making it highly concise and well-organized.
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 complexity of a domain lookup tool with 3 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is moderately complete. It covers the core purpose and output types but lacks details on behavioral traits, parameter specifics, and return format, which are important for effective tool use by an AI agent.
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 implicitly explains the 'domain' parameter by stating the tool looks up domain information, and hints at 'prefer_whois' through 'WHOIS fallback' and 'include_raw' via 'comprehensive details'. However, it does not fully detail each parameter's purpose or usage, leaving some ambiguity, especially for boolean flags.
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 with specific verbs ('look up', 'provides') and resources ('domain information'), detailing what information is returned ('registration details, nameservers, contacts, and status information'). It also specifies the protocols used ('RDAP protocol with WHOIS fallback'), making it highly specific and informative.
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 information but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, prerequisites, or exclusions. Since there are no sibling tools mentioned, the lack of differentiation is acceptable, but overall guidance remains limited to implied context.
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
domain_lookup
TDQS
Scored across 1 tool
With only one tool, there is no possibility of confusion or overlap between tools, as there are no other tools to compare it against. The tool's purpose is clearly defined and singular.
Since there is only one tool, naming consistency is inherently perfect. The tool name 'domain_lookup' follows a clear verb_noun pattern, but there are no other tools to assess consistency across a set.
A single tool is generally too few for most server purposes, as it limits functionality and can indicate a thin or incomplete surface. For a domain lookup server, basic operations like checking availability or historical lookups might be missing, making the scope feel underdeveloped.
The tool provides comprehensive domain lookup, but the server's purpose likely extends beyond a single lookup operation. Obvious gaps include no tools for domain availability checks, bulk lookups, historical data, or management actions, which are common in domain-related services.
Maintenance
Related MCP Connectors
Domain intelligence for DNS, WHOIS/RDAP, TLS, reputation, valuation, and brand protection.
Cybersecurity MCP server for URL scanning, threat intelligence, and domain reputation.
Remote MCP server: 19 domain-hygiene and email-auth tools (DNS, SPF, DMARC, DKIM, TLS).
Domain availability over RDAP, watchlists with daily checks, change history and email alerts.
Related MCP Servers
- AlicenseBqualityDmaintenanceA Model Context Protocol tool that provides DNS querying capabilities for various record types (A, AAAA, MX, TXT, CNAME, NS, etc.) through a standardized MCP interface.1MIT
- AlicenseNot gradedqualityDmaintenanceA Model Context Protocol server that provides comprehensive domain analysis capabilities including WHOIS lookups, DNS record queries, and DNS health checking.14MIT
- AlicenseAqualityDmaintenanceA WHOIS domain name query server based on Model Context Protocol (MCP), supporting the resolution of over 877 top-level domains and 169 country code top-level domains, and providing comprehensive domain name registration information query functions.32Apache 2.0
- AlicenseAqualityDmaintenanceA Model Context Protocol server for performing WHOIS domain lookups directly via TCP port 43, supporting over 877 TLDs and parsing for 169 country-code TLDs.331 npmMIT