dns

brand_audit_single

Read-onlyIdempotent

Run a full brand audit on a single target with optional standard/deep discovery depth, brand aliases, and caller-supplied candidate domains. Discovers brand-related domains, looks up registrar + registrant for each candidate, and classifies each into consolidated, real registrar-sprawl shadowIt, authorized vendor dependency, indeterminate, or impersonation relationships. Gated tier-wide by monthly BRAND_AUDIT_QUOTAS (free/agent=0, developer=50, partner=200, enterprise=500, owner=unlimited).

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`view`	No	Output view mode. 'csc_complement' produces a CSC-tuned payload; requires enterprise tier. Default 'standard'.
`depth`	No	Discovery depth. standard is default; deep expands candidate seeding and enrichment fanout.
`domain`	Yes	Target domain to audit (e.g., apple.com).
`format`	No	Inline output mode. Defaults to "both".
`planner_mode`	No	Planner mode for staged discovery fanout. observe emits metrics; enforce applies candidate-backed signal caps.
`brand_aliases`	No	Optional public brand aliases to seed, such as product or legal-entity labels.
`force_refresh`	No	Bypass cache and run a fresh check. Useful after DNS changes.
`discovery_mode`	No	Brand-discovery pipeline mode. classic = legacy sweep; tiered = tenant/graph/evidence wrappers first (BlackVeil-internal).
`min_confidence`	No	Drop candidates whose combined confidence falls below this threshold (0-1, default 0.5).
`candidate_domains`	No	Optional candidate domains supplied by the caller for corroboration.
`ownership_verified`	No	Caller attests that the target domain is owned or authorized for scanning. Required when discovery_mode is "tiered" and the caller is not an enterprise/owner/partner principal.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`score`	Yes
`passed`	Yes
`partial`	No
`category`	Yes
`findings`	Yes
`checkStatus`	No

TDQS

A3.9/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint. The description adds important behavioral context: quota gating by tier (with specific limits per tier) and the classification categories produced. It also implies that the tool may use caching (by mentioning force_refresh param in schema). No contradictions with annotations.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is three sentences, front-loading the core action. It is concise and covers purpose, behavior, and constraints. However, it could be slightly more structured (e.g., breaking out quota limits) and reduces redundancy ('full brand audit' then detailing same). Still, every sentence adds value.

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?

Given the complexity (11 params, output schema exists, no nested objects), the description adequately covers the tool's purpose, outcome (classification types), and behavioral constraint (quotas). It omits mention of prerequisites like ownership_verified (important for certain tiers) and the 'view' parameter's csc_complement mode, but these are documented in the schema. Overall, provides a solid mental model for the agent.

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% with detailed descriptions for all 11 parameters, so baseline is 3. The description echoes some parameters (depth, brand_aliases, candidate_domains) but does not add new semantic meaning beyond what the schema already provides. For example, the schema already explains 'depth' enum values and 'view' for csc_complement. The description contextualizes the workflow but does not enhance individual parameter understanding.

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 runs a 'full brand audit on a single target' with specific actions: discovers brand-related domains, looks up registrar/registrant, and classifies relationships into detailed categories (consolidated, shadowIt, etc.). The name 'brand_audit_single' and sibling context (e.g., brand_audit_batch_start, check_*) strongly differentiate this as the comprehensive single-target audit tool.

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?

The description does not provide explicit when-to-use vs when-not-to-use guidance or mention alternatives like discover_brand_domains or brand_audit_batch_start. However, the description inherently implies usage for a full single-target audit, and the presence of many check_* siblings suggests this is for broad analysis. An agent can infer context from the name and description, but lacks clear directives.

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

All dns 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

A3.6/5.0

Disambiguation4/5

Most tools have clearly distinct purposes, with detailed descriptions that help differentiate overlapping areas (e.g., check_dane vs check_dane_https). However, there are sets of similar tools (brand audit, OSINT, polling) that could cause confusion if descriptions are not carefully read.

Naming Consistency3/5

The naming is mostly readable but inconsistent: many check_* tools follow a verb_noun pattern, but there are also noun_verb names (scan_domain, cymru_asn), bare verbs (generate), and varied patterns for async operations (discover_brand_domains_start vs discover_brand_domains).

Tool Count2/5

With 80 tools, the server feels overstuffed. It covers multiple domains (DNS, email, brand, OSINT, M365) that could benefit from separation. The high number includes many polling/status tools that add overhead.

Completeness3/5

The server covers core DNS and email security checks thoroughly, including many edge cases (e.g., BIMI, MTA-STS, subdomain takeover). However, there are gaps like lack of direct DNS record management and some OSINT tools are restricted to operator deployment, leaving agents with dead ends.

brand_audit_single

Input Schema

Output Schema

TDQS

Glama MCP Gateway

TDQS

Resources