This server performs WHOIS lookups for domain names, retrieving comprehensive registration and ownership details.
Domain Lookup: Query WHOIS data for any domain (e.g., google.com) using the get_whois tool
Registration Details: Retrieve creation, update, and expiry dates, plus domain age
Registrar Info: Get the registrar's name and URL
Registrant Details: Access owner name, organization, and country
Nameservers: View nameservers associated with the domain
Contact Information: Query administrative, technical, and billing contacts
Domain Status: Check whether a domain is active, expired, or in another state
A Model Context Protocol (MCP) server that provides comprehensive WHOIS lookup capabilities using the IP2WHOIS API. This server allows AI agents to query domain registration details, including expiry dates, registrar information, and registrant data. This server also supports query on hosted domains by IP address.
Domain Lookup: Retrieve detailed WHOIS data for any domain name.
Hosted Domains Lookup: Retrieve hosted domains data for any IP address.
Comprehensive Data: Includes domain age, nameservers, registrar info, and administrative/billing contact details.
FastMCP Framework: Built using the high-performance FastMCP Python framework.
Related MCP server: Whodis MCP Server
This MCP server requires an API key to work. You can sign up for a free API key and enjoy up to 500 queries per month.
The setup also use uv, which can be install by following the guide.
Follow the steps to use this MCP server with Claude Desktop:
Setup the uv package manager, you can once again refer to the guide to do so.
Make sure you have installed the Claude Desktop, if you haven't, kindly download from here for Windows and MacOS users, or follow this guide for Linux user.
Open the claude_desktop_config.json in your choice of editor, if you do not having one yet, follow this guide to create one.
Add the following to your claude_desktop_config.json:
{
"mcpServers": {
"ip2whois": {
"command": "uvx",
"args": ["mcp-ip2whois"],
"env": {
"IP2WHOIS_API_KEY": "<YOUR API key HERE>"
}
}
}
}To get your API key, just login to your dashboard and get it from there. Replaced the <YOUR API key HERE> in above with your actual API key.
Restart the Claude Desktop after save the changes, and you should see it appear in the Search and tools menu.
To query the WHOIS information, just enter your query about the domain in a chat in Claude Desktop. Some of the example query will be:
Who is the registrar of the (domain)?
Who is the owner of (domain)?
What is the WHOIS for (domain)?
For instance, below is the result of the domain google.com:
To query for the hosted domains by IP address, just enter your query about the IP in a chat in Claude Desktop. Some of the example query will be:
What domains did (IP) have?
What are the domains in (IP)?
What's the domain owned by (IP)?
In Claude Desktop, the model will automatically generate the output based on the result returned by IP2WHOIS MCP server.
IP2WHOIS_API_KEY
The IP2WHOIS API key, which allows you to query up to 500 per month for free and more details of the IP address. You can sign up for a free API key, or subscribe to a plan to enjoy more benefits.
get_whoisLook up WHOIS data for a domain name.
Arguments:
domain (string): The domain name to look up (e.g., google.com).
Output: Returns a JSON object containing:
domain_id, status, domain_age
create_date, update_date, expire_date
registrar (name, url, etc.)
registrant (name, organization, country)
nameservers
get_hosted_domainsQuery for the list of hosted domain names by IP address.
Arguments:
ip (string): The IP address (IPv4 or IPv6) to look up.
Output: Returns a JSON object containing the domains hosted on the ip address, and the total number of hosted domains found
See the LICENSE file.
Lookup for the list of hosted domain names by IP address.
Args:
ip: The ip address (IPv4 or IPv6) to look up.
Returns:
A JSON string result includes the domains hosted on the ip address, and the
total number of hosted domains found.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| ip | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are present, so description carries full burden. It discloses that the tool returns a JSON string with domains and total count, but does not mention any limitations, rate limits, error handling, or data source freshness. For a simple lookup, this is adequate but not highly transparent.
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 short and includes structured Args/Returns sections. It is clear and to the point, though the Returns section could be more concise.
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 tool with one parameter and no nested objects, the description covers the essential behavior. The presence of an output schema (even if not detailed here) reduces the need to explain return values further.
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 coverage is 0%, but the description adds clear meaning to the single required parameter 'ip', specifying it expects an IPv4 or IPv6 address. This significantly helps an agent understand what to provide.
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 it is a lookup for hosted domain names by IP address. The verb 'Lookup' and resource 'hosted domain names' are specific, and it distinguishes from sibling tool 'get_whois' which does WHOIS lookups.
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 context (reverse DNS lookups) but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives. No exclusions or when-not-to-use guidance is provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Lookup WHOIS data for a domain name. Use this tool when the user asks about
domain registration details, registrar names, expiry dates, domain ownership,
or nameservers for a specific website (e.g., 'google.com').
Args:
domain: The domain name to look up (e.g., 'example.com').
Returns:
A JSON string result includes domain age, update and expiry date, assiociated nameservers, registrar and registrant information, and admin, tech and billing information.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| domain | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It describes the return format and fields, indicating it is a read-only lookup, but does not mention error handling or authorization needs.
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 concise with an effective structure: purpose statement, Args, Returns. Every sentence adds value with no waste.
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 is simple with one parameter and an output schema, the description covers parameter and return data well. It lacks mention of errors or limitations, but is otherwise 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?
The domain parameter is clearly described with purpose and an example. Schema has no description (0% coverage), so the description fully compensates by explaining what the parameter is.
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 it performs a WHOIS lookup for a domain name, listing specific details like registrar, expiry, nameservers, etc. It is distinct from the sibling tool get_hosted_domains by focusing on registration data.
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?
Explicitly says when to use this tool: when user asks about domain registration details, registrar, expiry, etc. However, it does not mention when not to use or differentiate from the sibling tool.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Recent tool additions, removals, and schema changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
v1.2.0get_hosted_domainsget_whoisv1.1.0get_whoisv0.1.0get_whoisThe two tools have clearly distinct purposes: one resolves IP addresses to hosted domains, the other retrieves WHOIS data for domain names. There is no functional overlap.
Both tools follow the consistent verb_noun pattern (get_hosted_domains, get_whois), making the naming predictable and easy to understand.
With only two tools, the server feels minimal for the domain of IP and domain information. While the tools cover core functionalities, the count is at the lower boundary of what's reasonable.
The tools cover hosted domains and WHOIS lookups, but common related operations like IP geolocation, domain availability checks, or reverse IP lookups are missing. The surface is functional but not comprehensive.
Unclaimed servers have limited discoverability.
If you are the server author, to access and configure the admin panel.
WHOIS/RDAP lookup, IP geolocation and Punycode conversion. 1400+ TLDs incl. IDN. No API key.
Domain intel for AI agents: RDAP registration, DNS, email deliverability, tech stack.
Domain intel for AI agents: RDAP registration, DNS, email deliverability, tech stack.
Normalized JSON for any domain across 1,200+ TLDs, reading WHOIS where no RDAP server exists.
We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.
curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/ip2whois/mcp-ip2whois'
If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server
