BlackVeil DNS & Email Security Scanner

compare_domains

Read-onlyIdempotent

Side-by-side security comparison of 2–5 domains. Shows relative scores, category gaps, and unique weaknesses for each domain. Use when comparing your security posture against a competitor, or doing a head-to-head comparison between multiple domains.

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": {
      "domains": "<domains>"
    },
    "name": "compare_domains"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`format`	No	Output verbosity.
`domains`	Yes	Domains to compare (2–5 domains)
`force_refresh`	No	Bypass the cache.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed2 schema fields changedNov 12, 2026

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."

Changed1 schema field changedOct 25, 2026
- addedInput schema / additionalProperties
```
Added value: +false
```

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"
+}

First observedApr 21, 2026

TDQS

A3.6/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, and open-world behavior, so the safety profile is covered elsewhere. The description usefully discloses what the result contains (relative scores, category gaps, unique weaknesses), but says nothing about caching behavior despite a force_refresh parameter, nor about cost or latency for multi-domain scans.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the scope and followed by outputs then usage. Slight redundancy between 'comparison' in the opening and 'comparing' in the closing sentence, but nothing extraneous.

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?

There is no output schema, and the description fairly summarizes what the comparison returns, which is the key gap it must fill. It could be more complete by stating whether one domain acts as a reference/baseline in the side-by-side or how results are ordered, but an agent has enough to invoke it correctly.

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 domains, format, and force_refresh. The description restates the 2–5 domain constraint and adds no meaning for format or force_refresh beyond the schema, which is baseline behavior.

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 first sentence names a specific verb and resource ('Side-by-side security comparison of 2–5 domains') and the second states the concrete outputs (relative scores, category gaps, unique weaknesses). It does not distinguish itself from the closest sibling, compare_baseline, so an agent cannot fully disambiguate from the text alone.

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 clear when-to-use context: posture comparison against a competitor or a head-to-head comparison of multiple domains. No exclusions or named alternatives are provided, so an agent comparing against a stored baseline has no in-definition 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.