Find out who hosts a website. Returns the hosting provider, IP/ASN/network owner, server location, DNS/nameserver provider, CDN or proxy detection (Cloudflare, Fastly, etc.), SSL certificate issuer, and mail servers/provider for a domain in one combined report.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| domain | Yes | Domain or URL to build a hosting report for (e.g. github.com). URLs are normalized to a bare hostname. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It lists the output categories in detail, which is good, but it does not mention error handling, behavior for invalid domains, or limitations (e.g., hidden server locations behind CDNs). The tone is purely declarative about results, missing some situational nuance.
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 a single, information-dense sentence that front-loads the core purpose and then enumerates all report components. It is concise and each clause adds value, though the enumeration is slightly long. Overall it is well-structured for quick parsing.
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 tool's moderate complexity and lack of an output schema, the description compensates by explicitly listing all result categories (IP/ASN, CDN, SSL, mail, etc.). This gives the agent a solid understanding of the return content. It does not explain data freshness or sources, but for a lookup report it is reasonably complete.
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 100%: the single 'domain' parameter already explains its meaning and normalization behavior. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond that, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.
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 opens with a specific verb+resource ('Find out who hosts a website') and enumerates the full scope of the combined report (hosting provider, IP/ASN, server location, DNS/nameserver, CDN, SSL issuer, mail). It clearly differentiates from sibling tools like dns_lookup or ssl_certificate by emphasizing the combined, single-report nature.
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 when a comprehensive hosting-related summary is needed, explicitly stating it returns 'one combined report.' It does not enumerate exclusions or name alternative tools, but the combined-report framing gives clear context for when to choose it over individual lookup tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Tools have mostly distinct purposes, e.g., dns_lookup vs dns_record vs dns_propagation are different operations. A few overlaps like bimi_check versus bimi_vmc and dns_lookup versus dns_record could cause slight confusion, but descriptions are clear enough.
All tools use snake_case with consistent verb_noun pattern (e.g., dns_lookup, bimi_check, uptime_check). The my_* prefix for account-specific tools provides a clear sub-pattern. No mixed conventions.
23 tools is somewhat high but justified for a DNS/domain monitoring server covering lookups, health checks, security, SSL, RDAP, BIMI, uptime, and account management. Each tool adds distinct value, though a few could be merged.
Covers DNS, SSL, security, hosting, BIMI, RDAP, and account monitoring comprehensively. Minor gaps: no direct WHOIS (RDAP covers registration) and no DNS record modification tools (read-only focus). Overall well-rounded.
