Skip to main content
Glama

TunnelMind Data API

by ai.tunnelmind

get_domain

Returns the complete surveillance intelligence record for a domain name. If the domain is in TunnelMind's tracker database (80,000+ entries), the response includes tracker category, risk score, fingerprinting data, cookie persistence, IAB TCF purposes, and the owning corporate entity. If the domain is not in the database, a live probe is automatically run: RDAP registration data, DNS records (MX, SPF, TXT verification tokens), HTTP headers, and CSP third-party actors are fetched fresh from the edge and returned.

Use this tool when:

  • You need to know whether a specific domain tracks users, and how aggressively.

  • You are researching who owns a domain and what corporate entity controls it.

  • You want to check HTTP security headers and third-party services embedded in a site.

  • You are building a risk score for a domain before routing traffic through it.

Do NOT use this tool when:

  • You want to search by keyword or category — use search instead.

  • You want all domains for an entity — use get_entity instead.

Inputs:

  • domain (path, required): Domain name. Strip www. prefix — it is removed automatically. Subdomains are resolved to the parent: ads.doubleclick.net → doubleclick.net. Examples: doubleclick.net, google-analytics.com, intercom.io.

Returns:

  • Full DomainRecord. Free tier returns the domain, category, score, prevalence, and entity name. Pro/enterprise additionally return tcf_vendor_id, tcf_purposes, tcf_features, and disconnect_cats.

  • If the domain is not in the tracker database, live_lookup: true is set and RDAP/DNS/HTTP probe results are returned instead of tracker fields.

  • 404 if the domain cannot be found via live probe either (unknown TLD, unreachable).

Cost:

  • Free tier: included in 50 req/day limit. Pro/enterprise: included in plan.

Latency:

  • Database hit: typical <100ms, p99 <300ms.

  • Live probe: typical 2-5s, p99 10s (external DNS/HTTP calls).

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
domainYesDomain name to look up (www. prefix stripped automatically)

TDQS

A5/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description fully carries the burden. It discloses automatic subdomain resolution, the live probe fallback, tier-dependent return fields, 404 errors, cost, and latency. No hidden behaviors remain.

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 long but excellently structured with clear sections (overview, when to use, when not to use, inputs, returns, cost, latency). Every sentence provides necessary operational detail; nothing is filler. The opening sentence immediately establishes the core purpose.

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?

Gven the lack of an output schema, the description comprehensively covers return values (free vs pro fields, live_lookup flag, 404 response), error conditions, cost, and latency. It is fully self-contained for an agent to use the tool correctly.

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

Parameters5/5

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

While schema already specifies the `domain` parameter, the description adds significant meaning: subdomain normalization (ads.doubleclick.net → doubleclick.net), concrete examples, and behavioral implications (www stripping, live probe consequences). This goes well beyond the schema's minimal description.

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 returns 'the complete surveillance intelligence record for a domain name' and details both database and live-probe modes. It explicitly differentiates from siblings by naming `search` and `get_entity` as alternatives for different use cases.

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

Usage Guidelines5/5

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

Extensive 'Use this tool when' scenarios are listed (tracking behavior, ownership research, header checks, risk scoring) alongside explicit 'Do NOT use' cases with named alternative tools. This leaves no ambiguity about when to choose this tool.

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

All TunnelMind Data API toolsInspect
Try in Browser
RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

B3.3/5.0
Disambiguation2/5

Many tools overlap in purpose, such as cross_lens_verify, cross_lens_lookup, profile_entity, and preflight_should_i_act, which all return node verdicts with subtle differences. Sigil verification tools and receipt-related tools also have similar names and require deep reading to distinguish.

Naming Consistency3/5

The tool names are mostly readable, but the pattern is mixed: some use verb_noun (get_domain, create_subscription) while others use domain prefixes (sigil_*, ghostroute_*, intel_*). Within each domain, naming is consistent, but the overall style lacks uniformity.

Tool Count1/5

With 90 tools, this server is extremely overloaded. Even for a multi-purpose data API, the sheer number overwhelms and makes navigation difficult, far exceeding the typical well-scoped MCP server. The count is an extreme mismatch for the apparent scope.

Completeness4/5

The tool surface is very comprehensive, covering tracker lookup, cross-lens verification, receipts, compliance, subscriptions, tasks, intel probes, and more. Minor gaps exist, such as no batch cross-lens verification, but core workflows are well covered.

Resources