Skip to main content
Glama

BlackVeil DNS & Email Security Scanner

by com.blackveilsecurity
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

compare_baseline

Read-onlyIdempotent

Compare a domain's current security configuration against a fixed policy baseline to determine compliance. Use to check whether a domain meets a policy requirement — not for tracking improvement/regression over time (use analyze_drift) and not for comparing multiple domains (use compare_domains).

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
domainYesDomain to scan and compare.
formatNoOutput verbosity. Auto-detected if omitted.
baselineYesPolicy/requirements baseline OBJECT for compliance enforcement — "does this domain meet these required controls?" (grade/score floors, require_* flags, max_*_findings). NOT a prior scan. For drift-over-time vs a previous ScanScore (or the literal "cached"), use analyze_drift instead.
force_refreshNoBypass cache and run a fresh check. Useful after DNS changes.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed2 schema fields changed
    • addedInput schema / additionalProperties
      Added value: +false
    • changedInput schema / properties / baseline / additionalProperties
      Previous value: -{}New value: +false
  2. Changed2 schema fields changed
    • changedInput schema / properties / baseline / description
      Previous value: -"Policy baseline requirements."New value: +"Policy/requirements baseline OBJECT for compliance enforcement — \"does this domain meet these required controls?\" (grade/score floors, require_* flags, max_*_findings). NOT a prior scan. For drift-over-time vs a previous ScanScore (or the literal \"cached\"), use analyze_drift instead."
    • addedInput schema / properties / force_refresh
      Added value: +{
+  "description": "Bypass cache and run a fresh check. Useful after DNS changes.",
+  "type": "boolean"
+}
  3. First observed

TDQS

A4.4/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, non-destructive). The description adds semantic context beyond that: it clarifies that the baseline is a fixed policy requirement rather than a prior scan, which prevents a plausible misuse. It doesn't discuss caching or result shape, keeping it below 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, front-loaded with the core action, followed by the routing guidance. Zero waste.

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 a 100%-covered schema and no output schema, the definition is nearly complete. It omits any hint of what a compliance comparison returns (pass/fail per control), which is the one area an agent must guess, keeping it at 4.

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 coverage is 100% and the baseline object is richly documented in the schema itself, including the same drift disambiguation. The description adds no parameter-level detail beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 (compare) and resource (domain security config vs a fixed policy baseline) with the outcome (determine compliance). It explicitly distinguishes itself from analyze_drift and compare_domains, so an agent can route correctly without opening a 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?

Gives explicit when-to-use (check whether a domain meets a policy requirement) and two explicit when-not-to-use cases with the correct alternatives named. Nothing is left to inference.

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 toolsInspect
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.

Resources