Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In

BlackVeil DNS & Email Security Scanner

by com.blackveilsecurity
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

map_supply_chain

Read-onlyIdempotent

Map DNS-visible third-party service dependencies for a domain. Correlates SPF, NS, TXT verifications, SRV services, and CAA records to reveal which third-party vendors can send email as the domain, control DNS, or access integrated services. Use when asked to map third-party or supply-chain dependencies — not for listing who can send email (use check_spf for that).

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": "map_supply_chain"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
domainYesDomain, e.g. example.com
formatNoOutput verbosity.
force_refreshNoBypass the cache.

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
    • addedInput schema / properties / force_refresh
      Added value: +{
+  "description": "Bypass cache and run a fresh check. Useful after DNS changes.",
+  "type": "boolean"
+}
  4. First observed

TDQS

A4.4/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, openWorld, idempotent, and non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuine value beyond that by explaining what data sources are fused and what the result reveals about vendor capability (send email, control DNS, access services). It omits caching behavior, even though the force_refresh parameter implies a cache layer exists.

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?

Three tight sentences: capability, mechanism/output, then usage routing. The exclusion is placed last where it belongs, and no sentence restates the title or the schema.

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, so the description carries the burden of indicating what comes back, and it does so at a high level by naming the vendor capabilities surfaced. Combined with the readOnly/openWorld annotations and fully described schema, an agent has enough to call it correctly, though a note on result shape or cache lifetime would close the last gap.

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 domain, format, and force_refresh are already documented in the schema itself. The description mentions record types rather than parameters and adds no format/enum or cache-bypass semantics beyond what the schema states, 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 and resource ('Map DNS-visible third-party service dependencies for a domain') and enumerates the exact record types correlated (SPF, NS, TXT verifications, SRV, CAA). It also states the analytical payoff, so an agent can distinguish it from record-level checkers like check_spf without opening the 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?

Explicitly says when to use it ('when asked to map third-party or supply-chain dependencies') and when not to, naming the alternative and its purpose ('use check_spf for that' for listing who can send email). This is a clear routing rule, not an implied one.

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