BlackVeil DNS & Email Security Scanner

check_dane_https

Read-onlyIdempotent

Verify DANE certificate pinning for HTTPS connections. Looks up TLSA records at _443._tcp.{domain} (port 443) and validates their syntax, usage/selector/matching-type fields and DNSSEC backing. The record is reported as present but UNVERIFIED in every deployment: comparison against the certificate the host actually serves is currently withdrawn because the operator probe vantage cannot observe the origin certificate (finding metadata notAssessedReason probe_vantage_intercepted when the probe is bound), so a stale pin is NOT detected here. Distinct from check_dane which covers SMTP at port 25. Part of the scan_domain audit.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`domain`	Yes	Domain to check (e.g., example.com)
`format`	No	Output verbosity. Auto-detected if omitted.
`force_refresh`	No	Bypass cache and run a fresh check. Useful after DNS changes.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

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

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed1 schema field changedOct 5, 2026
- addedOutput schema / properties / verdictWithheld
```
Added value: +{
+  "type": "boolean"
+}
```
Changed2 schema fields changedAug 18, 2026
- addedOutput schema / properties / checkStatus
```
Added value: +{
+  "type": "string"
+}
```
- addedOutput schema / properties / partial
```
Added value: +{
+  "type": "boolean"
+}
```

Changed1 schema field changedJul 2, 2026

addedInput schema / properties / force_refresh

Added value: +{
+  "description": "Bypass cache and run a fresh check. Useful after DNS changes.",
+  "type": "boolean"
+}

Changed1 schema field changedMay 26, 2026

changedOutput schema / (root)

Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+  "additionalProperties": {},
+  "properties": {
+    "category": {
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "findings": {
+      "items": {
+        "additionalProperties": {},
+        "properties": {},
+        "type": "object"
+      },
+      "type": "array"
+    },
+    "passed": {
+      "type": "boolean"
+    },
+    "score": {
+      "type": "number"
+    }
+  },
+  "required": [
+    "category",
+    "score",
+    "passed",
+    "findings"
+  ],
+  "type": "object"
+}

First observedApr 21, 2026

TDQS

A4.4/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Goes well beyond the readOnly/idempotent/openWorld annotations by disclosing a decisive behavioral caveat: the record is reported UNVERIFIED in every deployment, certificate comparison is withdrawn, and a stale pin is NOT detected, with the reason (probe_vantage_intercepted). This is exactly the kind of hidden limitation an agent must know before trusting a result.

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?

Front-loads the purpose, then the method, then the critical caveat, then the sibling distinction. Dense and mostly waste-free, though the middle clause explaining the withdrawn comparison is convoluted enough to slow a reader.

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?

With an output schema present, return values need not be explained, and the description supplies everything else an agent needs: scope, port/record pattern, the UNVERIFIED limitation, and the sibling boundary. Nothing material is missing for correct invocation or interpretation.

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 description coverage is 100%, so domain, format, and force_refresh are already documented in the schema. The description only echoes the _443._tcp.{domain} lookup pattern and adds no extra semantics (e.g., caching behavior tied to force_refresh), so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb (verify DANE certificate pinning) and resource (HTTPS TLSA records at _443._tcp.{domain}), and explicitly separates itself from the sibling check_dane which handles SMTP port 25. An agent can distinguish the two without opening either schema.

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 names the alternative (check_dane for SMTP port 25) and situates itself in the scan_domain audit, which is strong routing context. It stops short of stating when an agent should prefer this over, say, check_ssl or check_svcb_https, so no full when/when-not matrix.

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

All BlackVeil DNS & Email Security Scanner tools Inspect

Try in Browser

One endpoint for every MCP toolRayrun runs every MCP server behind one URL and holds the credentials. Each call is decided per client, tool, and argument, then recorded.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.