Skip to main content
Glama
devstroop

domain-mcp

by devstroop
OverviewSchemaRelated ServersScoreDiscussions
TypeScript
Remote

domain-mcp

An MCP (Model Context Protocol) server for domain name availability checking, WHOIS lookups, and domain suggestions — no API key required.

Uses RDAP for availability checks, real WHOIS servers via TCP port 43 for registration records, and domainr.com for domain suggestions.

Features

  • Search Domains — Get domain suggestions across 25+ popular TLDs (.com, .io, .dev, .ai, etc.) with availability

  • Check Domain — Detailed availability status via RDAP — registrar, creation/expiry dates, nameservers

  • Bulk Check — Check up to 20 domains at once in a comparison table

  • WHOIS Lookup — Full WHOIS records via TCP port 43 — registrar, registrant, dates, status, nameservers, abuse contacts

  • Zero Config — No API key, no sign-up, works out of the box

Related MCP server: mcp-server-dns

Setup

1. Install & Build

cd domain-mcp
npm install
npm run build

2. Add to MCP Client

Add to your VS Code settings.json or Claude Desktop config:

{
  "mcpServers": {
    "domain-mcp": {
      "command": "node",
      "args": ["path/to/domain-mcp/dist/index.js"]
    }
  }
}

No environment variables or API keys needed.

Tools

search_domains

Search for domain name suggestions with availability status.

Parameter

Type

Required

Description

query

string

✅

Brand name, keyword, or domain to search

tlds

string[]

—

Optional TLDs to check (e.g. ["com", "io"])

check_domain

Check availability and registration details of a specific domain via RDAP.

Parameter

Type

Required

Description

domain

string

✅

Full domain name (e.g. example.io)

check_multiple_domains

Bulk check multiple domains at once.

Parameter

Type

Required

Description

domains

string[]

✅

Array of domains to check (max 20)

whois_lookup

Perform a WHOIS lookup via TCP port 43. Returns registrar, registrant, dates, nameservers, status flags, and abuse contacts.

Parameter

Type

Required

Description

domain

string

✅

Full domain name (e.g. google.com)

raw

boolean

—

If true, returns the full raw WHOIS text dump

How It Works

  1. Domain suggestions are fetched from domainr.com (the same free web UI). Falls back to generating popular TLD combinations.

  2. Availability checks use RDAP — the official, free, open replacement for WHOIS. If RDAP has no record, a DNS lookup confirms the domain doesn't exist.

  3. Registration details (registrar, dates, nameservers) come from the RDAP response for registered domains.

  4. WHOIS records are fetched via direct TCP connections to WHOIS servers on port 43 — the same protocol used by the whois CLI tool. Supports 45+ TLDs out of the box and auto-discovers others via IANA. Automatically follows referral servers (e.g. Verisign → registrar-specific WHOIS).

License

MIT

Available Tools

4 tools
check_domainA

Check the availability and detailed status of a specific domain name. Returns: available/taken, registrar, creation/expiration dates, nameservers, and RDAP status flags. No API key required — uses RDAP + DNS.

ParametersJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
domainYesFull domain name to check (e.g. "devstroop.io", "example.com")

TDQS

A4.3/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden. It explains the method (RDAP + DNS), the return data, and that no API key is needed. This is sufficient for a read-only check tool.

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?

Two well-crafted sentences with no wasted words. The description front-loads the action and resource, then lists returns and method.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness5/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a tool with low complexity (1 param, no output schema), the description fully covers purpose, return fields, and method. No gaps evident.

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%, so the parameter is fully described in the schema. The description does not add detail about the parameter beyond what the schema already provides, achieving baseline.

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 verb 'Check', specifies the resource 'specific domain name', and enumerates the returned data. It distinguishes from siblings like 'search_domains' (multiple) and 'whois_lookup' (WHOIS protocol vs RDAP+DNS).

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description notes 'No API key required' which guides usage. It does not explicitly compare to siblings, but the context makes it clear this is for single domain checks. No exclusions provided.

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

check_multiple_domainsA

Check availability of multiple domain names at once. Returns a comparison table with availability, registrar, expiry, and details. Useful for comparing alternatives (e.g. devstroop.com vs devstroop.io vs devstroop.dev). Maximum 20 domains per request. No API key required.

ParametersJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
domainsYesArray of domain names to check (e.g. ["devstroop.com", "devstroop.io", "devstroop.dev"])

TDQS

A4.4/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

No annotations, so description carries full burden. It states return details (availability, registrar, expiry) and 'No API key required.' Does not mention rate limits or error handling, but sufficient for a simple check tool.

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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with main action. No wasted words. Key details (max 20, no API key) are included efficiently.

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 single-parameter tool with no output schema, description covers purpose, usage scenario, constraint (max 20), and auth requirement. Could mention error behavior, but overall sufficient.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema has 100% coverage with description for 'domains.' The tool description adds usage context (example, max 20) and comparison use case, adding value beyond 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 clearly states the tool checks availability of multiple domain names at once, with a comparison table output. It provides example usage and distinguishes from siblings like check_domain (single) and search_domains.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Explicitly says 'useful for comparing alternatives' with examples. Also mentions max 20 domains per request. Missing explicit when-not-to-use or alternatives, but siblings provide context.

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

search_domainsA

Search for domain name suggestions and check their availability. Given a query (e.g. "devstroop" or "acme coffee"), returns matching domain names across many TLDs (.com, .io, .dev, etc.) with availability status. No API key required — uses RDAP + domainr.com.

ParametersJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
tldsNoOptional list of TLDs to check (e.g. ["com", "io", "dev"]). If omitted, popular TLDs are used.
queryYesSearch query — a brand name, keyword, or full domain (e.g. "devstroop", "acme coffee", "devstroop.io")

TDQS

A3.9/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Discloses it uses RDAP and domainr.com and that no API key is required. However, no annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden; it lacks details on rate limits, result limits, or behavior when query is a full domain.

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?

Two sentences: first states purpose, second adds details and examples. No wasted words, front-loaded with key information.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness3/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

No output schema, so description should elaborate on return format. It only says 'returns matching domain names with availability status', but doesn't specify structure (e.g., array of objects). Could be more complete.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100% so baseline 3. Description adds value by giving examples (e.g., 'devstroop', 'acme coffee') and explaining what happens when tlds are omitted. This goes 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?

Clearly states it searches for domain name suggestions and checks availability, with examples like 'devstroop' or 'acme coffee'. Distinguishes from siblings that check specific domains or perform WHOIS lookups.

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?

Provides context that no API key is required and describes input, but does not explicitly say when to use this tool versus check_domain, check_multiple_domains, or whois_lookup. Usage is implied rather than stated.

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

whois_lookupA

Perform a WHOIS lookup for a domain name. Returns registrar, registrant, creation/expiration dates, nameservers, status, and abuse contacts. Queries real WHOIS servers directly via TCP port 43 — no API key required. Set raw=true to get the full raw WHOIS text.

ParametersJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
rawNoIf true, returns the full raw WHOIS text instead of parsed fields.
domainYesFull domain name to look up (e.g. "google.com", "devstroop.io")

TDQS

A4.4/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

The description discloses that it queries real WHOIS servers directly via TCP port 43 without requiring an API key. This is useful beyond the schema. It does not mention error handling or rate limits, but for a simple tool, this is adequate.

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 extremely concise with two sentences: first defines purpose and output, second adds method and parameter option. No wasted words.

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 simple tool with no output schema, the description covers the main purpose, method, and return fields. It could mention domain format validation or limitations (e.g., no IP), but it is sufficiently complete for effective use.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100%, but the description adds value by listing the parsed fields returned (registrar, dates, etc.) not present in the schema. The raw parameter is also described, echoing the schema but providing context.

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 action ('Perform a WHOIS lookup') and the specific resource ('domain name'). It lists the returned data fields, which distinguishes it from sibling tools like search_domains or check_domain.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description provides clear context (direct TCP query, no API key required) and mentions the raw parameter. However, it does not explicitly say when not to use or compare with alternatives, though the purpose is self-evident.

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. Dates show when Glama detected each change.

  1. 4 tool updatesv1.0.0
    • First observedcheck_domain
    • First observedcheck_multiple_domains
    • First observedsearch_domains
    • First observedwhois_lookup
Install Server
RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

TDQS

A4.3/5.0
Disambiguation5/5

Each tool has a clearly distinct purpose: domain search suggestions, single availability check, bulk availability check, and WHOIS lookup. Even though check_domain and whois_lookup both return registration details, one focuses on availability and RDAP while the other provides full WHOIS data, avoiding confusion.

Naming Consistency5/5

All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern with snake_case: search_domains, check_domain, check_multiple_domains, whois_lookup. The naming is predictable and uniform.

Tool Count5/5

With 4 tools, the server is well-scoped for domain search and lookup operations. Each tool serves a core function without redundancy, fitting the typical 3-15 tool range.

Completeness4/5

The tool set covers search, single and bulk availability checks, and detailed WHOIS data—covering the main domain lookup needs. A minor gap is the absence of DNS record lookup, but for a domain availability and WHOIS server, this is acceptable.

Resources

Unclaimed servers have limited discoverability.

Looking for Admin?

If you are the server author, to access and configure the admin panel.

Related MCP Connectors

Related MCP Servers

  • Domain-MCP

    rinadelph
    A
    license
    Not graded
    quality
    F
    maintenance
    A simple MCP server that enables AI assistants to perform domain research including availability checking, WHOIS lookups, DNS record retrieval, and finding expired domains without requiring API keys.
    62
    MIT

  • domain-mcp

    itsalfredakku
    F
    license
    Not graded
    quality
    Not graded
    maintenance
    An MCP server for domain availability checks, WHOIS lookups, and domain suggestions using RDAP and TCP port 43. It allows users to perform bulk checks and retrieve registration details across multiple TLDs without requiring an API key.
    43
    -

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/devstroop/domain-search-mcp'

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