TunnelMind Data API

sigil_verify_domain

Confirms a publisher controls a domain by checking for a DNS TXT record the owner publishes under _tunnelmind.{domain}. A DNS record can only be set by whoever controls the zone, so its presence proves control — a stronger signal than ads.txt, which is just a file anything in the request path can serve.

Use this tool when:

You want proof a publisher actually owns the domain it claims.
You are distinguishing publishers who have opted into Sigil verification.

Inputs:

domain (query, required): Publisher domain. www. and scheme stripped.

Returns:

verified: true (record found), false (absent), or null (DNS lookup failed).
expected: the exact TXT record the owner must publish to verify.
found_records: TXT values currently present at _tunnelmind.{domain}.
checked_at: ISO 8601 timestamp of the live DNS lookup.

Cost:

Counts as one request against the daily rate limit.

Latency:

Typical: <300ms (one DNS-over-HTTPS lookup).

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`domain`	Yes

TDQS

A4.8/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

With no annotations, the description fully discloses behavior: it performs a live DNS lookup, returns true/false/null semantics for verification, exposes expected and found records, counts against a rate limit, and provides typical latency. This goes well beyond minimal requirements.

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 well-structured with clear sections for purpose, when to use, inputs, returns, cost, and latency. Every sentence contributes useful information, and the purpose is front-loaded for quick agent scanning.

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?

Given the tool has no annotations, no output schema, and only one parameter, the description is exceptionally complete. It covers purpose, input semantics, output fields, rate-limit cost, and latency, leaving no significant ambiguity for an agent deciding to invoke the tool.

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?

The input schema only specifies a bare 'domain' string with no description, so the description carries the full burden. It explains that the domain is a query parameter, required, and that 'www.' and scheme are stripped, adding crucial semantics.

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 confirms domain ownership via a DNS TXT record under `_tunnelmind.{domain}`, which is a specific verb+resource+mechanism. It also distinguishes itself from ads.txt verification by emphasizing DNS record control is a stronger signal.

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?

Explicit 'Use this tool when' conditions are given, and the description contrasts this with ads.txt, implying when the alternative is weaker. However, it does not name a specific sibling tool or state explicit 'when not to use' scenarios, so it falls just short of a 5.

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 tools Inspect

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

Need Help?