Skip to main content
Glama

dns

by com.blackveilsecurity

check_dane_https

Read-onlyIdempotent

Verify DANE certificate pinning for HTTPS connections. Looks up TLSA records at _443._tcp.{domain} (port 443) to confirm the web certificate is pinned in DNS. Distinct from check_dane which covers SMTP at port 25. Part of the scan_domain audit.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
domainYesDomain to check (e.g., example.com)
formatNoOutput verbosity. Auto-detected if omitted.
force_refreshNoBypass cache and run a fresh check. Useful after DNS changes.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
scoreYes
passedYes
partialNo
categoryYes
findingsYes
checkStatusNo

TDQS

A4.1/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, openWorldHint=true. The description adds value beyond these by specifying the exact DNS lookup target (_443._tcp.{domain}) and noting the tool is part of the scan_domain audit. This extra context about scope and workflow is valuable without contradicting 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 main action and then providing technical detail and differentiation. It is concise with no wasted words, though slightly redundant with 'port 443' mentioned twice. A tight structure earns a high score.

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 tool's simplicity (3 params with full schema, output schema present), the description covers the core function, DNS lookup mechanism, port, sibling differentiation, and audit context. It lacks mention of prerequisites or error cases but is sufficiently complete for an experienced agent to use correctly.

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 baseline is 3. The description does not elaborate on parameters beyond what the schema provides (domain, format, force_refresh). While the schema itself is well-described, the tool description adds no new semantics for the parameters, meeting but not exceeding the baseline.

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 verifies DANE certificate pinning for HTTPS connections using TLSA records at _443._tcp.{domain}. It explicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling check_dane (SMTP port 25), providing a specific verb and resource with differentiation.

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?

The description names the sibling tool check_dane and explains the port difference (HTTPS vs SMTP), giving clear context for when to use this tool over that one. However, it does not provide exclusions or guidance for other related siblings (e.g., check_ssl, check_svcb_https), so the guidance is good but not comprehensive.

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

All dns 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

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.

Resources