dns

discover_brand_domains

Read-onlyIdempotent

Discover all domains that belong to a brand's portfolio by aggregating certificate, DNS, redirect, and mail-policy signals. Use when asked what domains are part of a brand portfolio, or to find all domains related to a brand. Pass the EXACT seed domain verbatim — do NOT normalize or substitute a canonical domain.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`depth`	No	Discovery depth. standard is default; deep expands candidate seeding and enrichment fanout.
`domain`	Yes	The exact seed domain to expand, scanned verbatim (e.g., example.com). Do NOT normalize, resolve, or substitute a brand's canonical/main domain — pass the literal domain the user named (e.g. pass `clau.de`, not `anthropic.com`). Use `brand_aliases` for related brand labels.
`format`	No	Output verbosity. Auto-detected if omitted.
`signals`	No	Signal modules to invoke. Defaults to all 12 discovery/enrichment signals.
`planner_mode`	No	Planner mode for staged discovery fanout. observe emits metrics; enforce applies candidate-backed signal caps.
`brand_aliases`	No	Optional public brand aliases to seed, such as product or legal-entity labels.
`force_refresh`	No	Bypass cache and run a fresh check. Useful after DNS changes.
`discovery_mode`	Yes	Discovery mode. "classic" (default, BSL-licensed) runs the public signal-sweep pipeline. "tiered" layers Tier 0 (tenant-declared portfolio), Tier 1 (infrastructure-graph), and Tier 2 (declared-evidence) lookups in front of the legacy sweep, falling back to Tier 3 (the existing sweep) only on cache miss / very_stale fingerprint / uncovered caller candidates. Tiered mode requires private BlackVeil service bindings — BSL self-hosts should leave this on "classic".	classic
`dkim_selectors`	No	Optional DKIM selectors to probe. Defaults to a built-in common-selector list.
`min_confidence`	No	Drop candidates whose combined confidence falls below this threshold (0-1, default 0.5).
`candidate_domains`	No	Optional candidate domains supplied by the caller for corroboration.
`ownership_verified`	No	Caller attests that the seed domain is owned or authorized for scanning. Required when discovery_mode is "tiered" and the caller is not an enterprise/owner/partner principal. Prevents unauthorized mass reconnaissance via deep tier lookups.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`score`	Yes
`passed`	Yes
`partial`	No
`category`	Yes
`findings`	Yes
`checkStatus`	No

TDQS

A4.2/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint. The description adds behavioral context beyond annotations: it explains the signal aggregation method, the strict requirement for exact domain input, and the role of brand_aliases. No contradictions with annotations.

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?

The description is three sentences, each serving a clear purpose: what the tool does, when to use it, and a critical usage rule. It is front-loaded and contains no redundant or irrelevant information.

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 tool's complexity (12 params, output schema exists, many signals), the description covers the essentials: purpose, usage trigger, and a key constraint. Details about parameters and output are left to the schema, which is appropriate per the rules. Minor omission: no mention of the two discovery_modes, but that is detailed in the schema.

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% for all 12 parameters. The description adds minimal extra meaning (reinforcing the domain normalization rule) but does not substantially expand on parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 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 clearly states the verb 'discover' and the resource 'domains that belong to a brand's portfolio,' and specifies the method by aggregating signals. It distinguishes from sibling tools like discover_subdomains or check_* by focusing on brand portfolio discovery and explicitly says when to use it.

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?

The description explicitly states when to use the tool ('when asked what domains are part of a brand portfolio') and gives a critical usage instruction: 'Pass the EXACT seed domain verbatim — do NOT normalize or substitute.' It also mentions using brand_aliases for related labels. It does not explicitly list alternatives or when not to use, but the context is clear.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

All dns tools Inspect

Try in Browser

RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

A3.6/5.0

Disambiguation4/5

Most tools have clearly distinct purposes, with detailed descriptions that help differentiate overlapping areas (e.g., check_dane vs check_dane_https). However, there are sets of similar tools (brand audit, OSINT, polling) that could cause confusion if descriptions are not carefully read.

Naming Consistency3/5

The naming is mostly readable but inconsistent: many check_* tools follow a verb_noun pattern, but there are also noun_verb names (scan_domain, cymru_asn), bare verbs (generate), and varied patterns for async operations (discover_brand_domains_start vs discover_brand_domains).

Tool Count2/5

With 80 tools, the server feels overstuffed. It covers multiple domains (DNS, email, brand, OSINT, M365) that could benefit from separation. The high number includes many polling/status tools that add overhead.

Completeness3/5

The server covers core DNS and email security checks thoroughly, including many edge cases (e.g., BIMI, MTA-STS, subdomain takeover). However, there are gaps like lack of direct DNS record management and some OSINT tools are restricted to operator deployment, leaving agents with dead ends.

discover_brand_domains

Input Schema

Output Schema

TDQS

Glama MCP Gateway

TDQS

Resources