Skip to main content
Glama

BlackVeil DNS & Email Security Scanner

check_nsec_walkability

Read-onlyIdempotent

Assess zone walkability risk by analyzing NSEC3PARAM configuration. Detects plain NSEC zones, weak NSEC3 parameters, and opt-out flags.

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_nsec_walkability"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
domainYesDomain, e.g. example.com
formatNoOutput verbosity.
force_refreshNoBypass the cache.

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
scoreYes
passedYes
partialNo
categoryYes
findingsYes
checkStatusNo
verdictWithheldNo

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed3 schema fields changed
    • 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."
  2. Changed1 schema field changed
    • addedInput schema / additionalProperties
      Added value: +false
  3. Changed1 schema field changed
    • addedOutput schema / properties / verdictWithheld
      Added value: +{
      +  "type": "boolean"
      +}
  4. Changed2 schema fields changed
    • addedOutput schema / properties / checkStatus
      Added value: +{
      +  "type": "string"
      +}
    • addedOutput schema / properties / partial
      Added value: +{
      +  "type": "boolean"
      +}
  5. Changed1 schema field changed
    • addedInput schema / properties / force_refresh
      Added value: +{
      +  "description": "Bypass cache and run a fresh check. Useful after DNS changes.",
      +  "type": "boolean"
      +}
  6. Changed1 schema field changed
    • 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"
      +}
  7. First observed

TDQS

A3.8/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

The annotations already establish that this is a safe, read-only, idempotent, open-world check, and the description usefully adds that it detects plain NSEC zones, weak NSEC3 parameters, and opt-out flags. It does not describe caching behavior or output shape, but with annotation coverage and a present output schema the description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond annotations.

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?

Two tight sentences, front-loaded with the core action and followed by the detection targets. There is no redundant or filler language.

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?

The tool is a focused read-only DNSSEC check with complete schema descriptions, annotations, and an output schema, so return values need not be explained. The description is nearly complete but could better state when this check should be preferred over related DNSSEC tools.

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 the schema already documents domain, format, and force_refresh. The description does not add parameter-specific meaning beyond the schema, making the baseline 3 appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 states a specific verb and resource: assessing zone walkability risk by analyzing NSEC3PARAM configuration, and names concrete findings such as plain NSEC zones, weak NSEC3 parameters, and opt-out flags. It is clear what the tool does, though it does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling DNSSEC tools like check_dnssec or check_dnssec_chain.

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?

Usage is only implied by the purpose: an agent can infer this is for DNSSEC walkability-risk assessment, but the description gives no explicit when-to-use guidance, prerequisites, or exclusions relative to other DNSSEC checks.

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

Try in Browser

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.