Skip to main content
Glama

ContrastAPI

by com.contrastcyber

Brand Assets

brand_assets
Read-onlyIdempotent

Scrape a domain's homepage <head> for public brand assets — favicon, og:image, theme-color, og:site_name, JSON-LD Organization.logo. Use to enrich CRM records, build company-card UIs, or correlate a lead's site to their visual identity (no manual screenshot required). Strictly homepage-only (path /); we do NOT crawl. Ethical floor: target's robots.txt is honoured — Disallow: / for ContrastAPI OR * returns 403 error.code = robots_txt_disallow and we DO NOT fetch. Cache-Control: no-store / private from the target is respected (response is built but NOT written to our cache; cache_respected=false flags this). Per-target eTLD+1 throttle (60 req/min) prevents weaponising via subdomain rotation. All URL fields are absolute and _untrusted (DO NOT execute or shell-out — the target controls these strings). Free: 30/hr, Pro: 500/hr. Returns {domain, fetched_url, status_code, favicon_url_untrusted, og_image_url_untrusted, theme_color, site_name_untrusted, logo_url_untrusted, cache_respected, summary}. Returns 502 on DNS/TCP/TLS failure; 403 robots_txt_disallow when the target opted out.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
domainYesRegistrable domain to scrape brand assets for (e.g. 'github.com', 'stripe.com'). No scheme, no path, no port. The bot fetches https://<domain>/ with HTTP fallback.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
resultYes

TDQS

A4.7/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Beyond the readOnly/idempotent annotations, the description discloses critical behavioral details: robots.txt handling with exact error code, Cache-Control respect with cache_respected flag, per-target throttle of 60 req/min, untrusted URL fields warning, API quotas, and error return codes (502, 403). This is substantial added value.

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?

Although long, every sentence earns its place: purpose, use cases, restrictions, ethics, rate limits, security, quotas, and return shape are all covered. The core purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence, making it efficient and well-structured.

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?

With one parameter, rich annotations, and an output schema, the description still adds essential operational context: error scenarios, cache behavior, rate limiting, security warnings, and allowed use cases. It fully equips the agent to invoke the tool correctly and interpret responses.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100% for the domain parameter, but the description adds meaningful details: 'No scheme, no path, no port' and 'fetches https://<domain>/ with HTTP fallback'. This goes beyond the schema's basic definition.

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 starts with a specific verb 'Scrape' and resource 'a domain's homepage <head>', listing exact assets (favicon, og:image, etc.). It clearly distinguishes from siblings like seo_audit or tech_fingerprint by focusing on brand assets and explicitly stating homepage-only scope.

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 provides concrete use cases ('enrich CRM records, build company-card UIs, or correlate a lead's site to their visual identity') and clear constraints ('Strictly homepage-only (path /); we do NOT crawl'). It lacks explicit alternative tool names but gives enough context for the agent to choose appropriately.

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

All ContrastAPI 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

A4.5/5.0
Disambiguation4/5

Most tools have clearly distinct purposes, with differences between lookup/search/scan/audit for each domain. However, some overlap exists (e.g., email_mx vs email_security_posture, scan_headers vs contrast_scan) which could cause occasional confusion. Overall, boundaries are well-defined.

Naming Consistency5/5

Tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern (e.g., cve_lookup, check_headers, bulk_cve_lookup) with all lowercase underscores. Variations like kev_detail or ssl_check are minor and still predictable. No chaotic mixing of conventions.

Tool Count4/5

54 tools is high but justified by the broad cybersecurity scope (CVE, ATLAS, D3FEND, Sigma, domain, email, IOC, scanning). Some redundancy exists (e.g., three email-related tools), but the count is not excessive given the API's comprehensive feature set.

Completeness5/5

The tool set thoroughly covers the threat intelligence and domain investigation lifecycle: CVE/KEV/exploit/CWE, ATLAS/D3FEND/Sigma, DNS/WHOIS/SSL/subdomains, email security, IOC enrichment, and active scanning. No significant gaps are apparent for the stated cybersecurity purpose.

Resources