Skip to main content
Glama

dns

by com.blackveilsecurity

discover_brand_domains_start

Start an async brand-domain discovery for the EXACT seed domain provided (the async sibling of discover_brand_domains, which can run ~24s and time out interactive clients). Same args as discover_brand_domains. Returns { auditId, queuedAt, etaSeconds } immediately; poll with discover_brand_domains_status and fetch ranked candidates with discover_brand_domains_findings once complete.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
depthNoDiscovery depth. standard is default; deep expands candidate seeding and enrichment fanout.
domainYesThe 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.
formatNoOutput verbosity. Auto-detected if omitted.
signalsNoSignal modules to invoke. Defaults to all 12 discovery/enrichment signals.
planner_modeNoPlanner mode for staged discovery fanout. observe emits metrics; enforce applies candidate-backed signal caps.
brand_aliasesNoOptional public brand aliases to seed, such as product or legal-entity labels.
force_refreshNoBypass cache and run a fresh check. Useful after DNS changes.
discovery_modeYesDiscovery 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_selectorsNoOptional DKIM selectors to probe. Defaults to a built-in common-selector list.
min_confidenceNoDrop candidates whose combined confidence falls below this threshold (0-1, default 0.5).
candidate_domainsNoOptional candidate domains supplied by the caller for corroboration.
ownership_verifiedNoCaller 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.

TDQS

A4.5/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations indicate non-read-only, non-destructive, open-world, and non-idempotent. The description adds valuable beyond-annotation detail: it returns { auditId, queuedAt, etaSeconds } immediately, indicates queued execution, and mandates polling. This gives a concrete async lifecycle picture, though it does not mention side effects like the actual background DNS scanning.

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 two dense sentences: the first states the core action and the sibling rationale, the second gives the exact return contract and follow-up tools. Every clause earns its place with no filler.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness5/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For an async start tool with 12 parameters and no output schema, this description provides the entire agent-facing workflow: immediate response shape, polling via status, and retrieval via findings. It is complete enough for an agent to invoke and track the operation 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 descriptions cover 100% of parameters, so the baseline is 3. The description only says 'Same args as discover_brand_domains' and emphasizes EXACT seed domain, which partially echoes the schema's existing 'Do NOT normalize' note. It adds no meaningful parameter-level information beyond the schema.

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 uses the specific verb 'Start' and the resource 'async brand-domain discovery,' clearly distinguishing it from the synchronous discover_brand_domains. It also emphasizes the EXACT seed domain requirement, making the tool's purpose unambiguous.

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?

It explicitly names the async sibling discover_brand_domains and explains why to use this version (sync can run ~24s and time out interactive clients). It also prescribes the post-start workflow: poll with discover_brand_domains_status and fetch with discover_brand_domains_findings.

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

All dns toolsInspect
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.

Resources