BlackVeil DNS & Email Security Scanner

check_dnssec_chain

Read-onlyIdempotent

Walk the full DNSSEC chain of trust from the DNS root down to the target domain, tracing DS/DNSKEY records and algorithm usage at each zone level. Use when asked to trace the chain of trust from the DNS root, or to see the full DNSSEC delegation path step by step.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "domain": "<domain>"
    },
    "name": "check_dnssec_chain"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`domain`	Yes	Domain, e.g. example.com
`format`	No	Output verbosity.
`force_refresh`	No	Bypass the cache.

Output 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.

Changed3 schema fields changedNov 12, 2026

changedInput schema / properties / domain / description

Previous value: -"Domain to check (e.g., example.com)"New value: +"Domain, e.g. example.com"

changedInput schema / properties / force_refresh / description

Previous value: -"Bypass cache and run a fresh check. Useful after DNS changes."New value: +"Bypass the cache."

changedInput schema / properties / format / description

Previous value: -"Output verbosity. Auto-detected if omitted."New value: +"Output verbosity."

Changed1 schema field changedOct 25, 2026
- addedInput schema / additionalProperties
```
Added value: +false
```
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

A3.6/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered and the description carries a lower burden. It does add real behavior — the walk descends zone by zone and reports algorithm usage at each level — but says nothing about what happens when the chain breaks partway (does it return partial results or error?), nor that force_refresh exists to bypass caching, which matters for a live-DNS traversal.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the core action and followed by the usage trigger — nothing superfluous. Minor redundancy: 'chain of trust from the DNS root' is restated almost verbatim in the usage sentence, which could have been compressed.

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?

With an output schema present, return values need no explanation, and all three parameters are documented in the schema, so the description only needs to establish scope and selection. It does that, though a complex multi-zone traversal tool would benefit from one clause on broken-chain behavior and on how it differs from check_dnssec.

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%: 'domain', the 'full'/'compact' enum for format, and 'force_refresh' are all documented in the schema itself. The description adds no additional meaning beyond that (no hint about which format to prefer or when a refresh is warranted), so the baseline 3 applies.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description gives a specific verb and resource: 'Walk the full DNSSEC chain of trust from the DNS root down to the target domain', plus what is traced (DS/DNSKEY records, algorithm usage per zone level). That scope ('from the root, step by step, per zone level') implicitly separates it from a single-point DNSSEC validity check, but it never names the sibling check_dnssec, so the differentiation is inferred rather than stated.

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 second sentence gives an explicit use trigger: 'when asked to trace the chain of trust from the DNS root, or to see the full DNSSEC delegation path step by step.' This is clear context for selection, but there is no when-not guidance and no alternative tool is named for the case where the caller only wants a pass/fail DNSSEC result.

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.