Skip to main content
Glama

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).

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
domainYesDomain to check (e.g., example.com)
formatNoOutput verbosity. Auto-detected if omitted.
force_refreshNoBypass cache and run a fresh check. Useful after DNS changes.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed1 schema field changed
    • addedInput schema / additionalProperties
      Added value: +false
  2. 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"
+}
  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 declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, openWorldHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful behavioral context by explaining which DNS records are correlated and what the mapping reveals, though it does not describe output shape or caching behavior beyond the force_refresh parameter.

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 purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence, followed by the relevant record sources and the key usage distinction. The text is compact and every clause contributes either scope or routing guidance.

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?

For a read-only DNS dependency mapping tool with fully documented parameters and rich annotations, the description is largely complete: it names the inputs it correlates and the vendor categories it exposes. It does not describe the output structure, which is a minor gap given that there is no output 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%, and all three parameters are documented directly in the schema, including format and force_refresh. The description adds little parameter-specific meaning beyond saying the tool operates on a domain, so the baseline of 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 uses a specific verb and resource: map DNS-visible third-party service dependencies for a domain. It further clarifies by naming the record types correlated and the vendor-access categories revealed, which lets an agent understand the tool's scope 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?

It explicitly says to use this when asked to map third-party or supply-chain dependencies, and names a concrete exclusion: not for listing who can send email, use check_spf for that. This gives both a positive trigger and an alternative for the nearest overlapping sibling.

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