BlackVeil DNS & Email Security Scanner

check_shadow_domains

Read-onlyIdempotent

Find alternate TLD variants of a domain (e.g. example.net, example.co) that have weak or missing email authentication and could be used to spoof email. Use when asked about TLD variants with email auth gaps — distinct from check_lookalikes which detects typosquat/homoglyph impersonation domains.

Input 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

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 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

A4.4/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, openWorldHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real behavioral context beyond that: it reports on email authentication posture of the variants and frames results as spoofing risk. It does not mention whether TLD coverage is a fixed curated list or exhaustive, nor any per-call cost, which keeps it from a 5.

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 sentences, zero filler: the first defines the operation and its risk framing, the second handles routing. The key distinguishing information is front-loaded before the sibling comparison.

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 and all params documented, the description need not explain return values, and annotations carry the safety profile. What remains unstated is scope breadth (how many TLDs are evaluated, whether the root domain itself is included), which slightly affects interpretation of results.

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 all documented in the schema itself. The description adds only the example domain, which duplicates the schema's own example. Baseline 3 is correct.

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 and resource: 'Find alternate TLD variants of a domain', with a concrete example (example.net, example.co) and the security rationale (weak/missing email auth). It explicitly marks the boundary with check_lookalikes, so an agent can distinguish the two TLD-adjacent tools 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 Guidelines5/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

'Use when asked about TLD variants with email auth gaps' gives an explicit trigger condition, and the trailing clause names the alternative tool (check_lookalikes) with the reason it is not a substitute (typosquat/homoglyph). This is a clean when-to-use plus negative routing guidance.

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.