Skip to main content
Glama

BlackVeil DNS & Email Security Scanner

check_subdomailing

Read-onlyIdempotent

Detect SubdoMailing risk: analyzes the SPF include chain for dangling or hijackable subdomains that could let an attacker send email as the domain. Use when you want to know if an SPF include chain can be hijacked through a dangling domain, or to detect subdomain mailing risk hidden in SPF includes. Part of the scan_domain audit.

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_subdomailing"
  }
}

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

A4.1/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already establish that this is a read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, open-world operation. The description usefully adds that the tool analyzes the SPF include chain specifically for dangling or hijackable subdomains that could permit email spoofing, which clarifies the nature of the check beyond the safety profile.

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 front-loaded with the tool's core purpose and then adds usage guidance and sibling context. It is slightly repetitive in restating subdomain mailing risk in two consecutive sentences, but remains efficient overall.

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 existing output schema and the annotations covering read-only and open-world behavior, the description provides enough context to understand what the check does and when to call it. It could be slightly more complete by clarifying how it relates to check_spf or check_subdomain_takeover, but no critical calling information is missing.

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 input schema already documents the domain, format, and force_refresh parameters. The description does not add parameter-specific syntax or behavior beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 states a specific verb and resource: analyzes the SPF include chain for dangling or hijackable subdomains. It clearly distinguishes SubdoMailing risk from generic SPF checking by focusing on hijackable SPF includes, and it names the related scan_domain audit context.

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?

It gives explicit usage conditions: use when you want to know whether an SPF include chain can be hijacked through a dangling domain, or to detect subdomain mailing risk hidden in SPF includes. It does not explicitly compare against alternatives such as check_spf or check_subdomain_takeover, so it stops short of full when-vs-alternative guidance.

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.