Skip to main content
Glama

BlackVeil DNS & Email Security Scanner

check_srv

Read-onlyIdempotent

Map a domain's DNS-visible service footprint by probing 19 common SRV prefixes (email, calendar, messaging, directory, web) in parallel; returns discovered services and flags insecure advertisements such as plaintext IMAP/POP3/LDAP with no encrypted variant. No match among probed prefixes is not proof the domain has no services. Use to map DNS-visible services.

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_srv"
  }
}

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

A3.9/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already cover safety (readOnly, idempotent, openWorld, non-destructive), yet the description still adds real substance: 19 prefixes probed in parallel, the service categories covered, and that it flags insecure plaintext IMAP/POP3/LDAP advertisements with no encrypted variant. Remaining gaps such as caching/force_refresh mechanics and result shape are handled by the schema and output schema.

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-loaded with the action and scope, then the behavioral payoff, then the caveat — a sensible ordering. The trailing 'Use to map DNS-visible services' is largely redundant with the opening clause and could be cut.

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 rich annotations, full schema coverage and an output schema, the description only needs to convey scope, coverage limits and the insecure-advertisement flag — which it does. The one meaningful omission is that it never states the probe set is fixed at 19 prefixes beyond customization, though 'No match among probed prefixes is not proof' already signals that limitation.

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, format enum, force_refresh all documented), so the baseline is 3. The description adds no parameter-level meaning — the '19 prefixes' detail describes internal probing behavior, not any of the three inputs.

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 ('Map'), a precise resource ('DNS-visible service footprint') and the concrete mechanism ('probing 19 common SRV prefixes' across named categories). An agent can distinguish this from siblings like check_svcb_https or check_mx without opening the schema.

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?

The closing 'Use to map DNS-visible services' restates the purpose rather than giving real routing guidance, and no sibling alternatives (e.g., record-specific checkers) are named. It does add a valuable interpretation caveat — a non-match is not proof the domain lacks services — which is guidance about reading results, not about when to call it.

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.