One-call full dossier on a domain: registration (RDAP), DNS records, email deliverability, and website tech stack, combined into a single report. Use for fast lead qualification, company research, or recon without four separate calls.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| domain | Yes | Domain name, e.g. stripe.com |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral burden. It discloses the tool aggregates multiple data sources into a single report, which is the key behavioral trait. It does not detail response format or potential failures, but the read-only reporting nature is clear.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two sentences, each earns its place: the first defines what the tool does and what it includes; the second gives practical use cases. No filler or redundancy.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a single-parameter tool with no output schema, the description adequately covers the input and the nature of the output. It could mention return structure or error conditions, but the phrase 'single report' plus the listed data categories gives an agent enough to select and invoke it correctly.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
There is only one parameter, domain, and the schema already describes it with an example. The description adds no additional parameter-level detail beyond the schema, but because schema coverage is 100%, the baseline of 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool produces a combined domain dossier covering RDAP registration, DNS, email deliverability, and tech stack. It distinguishes itself from the sibling single-purpose tools by emphasizing 'one-call' aggregation versus separate calls.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description explicitly names use cases: fast lead qualification, company research, and recon. It implies when to use this tool over individual lookups by noting it avoids four separate calls, though it does not explicitly state when not to use it.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Each tool targets a distinct intelligence area—DNS, registration, email, subdomains, tech stack—so the set is largely unambiguous. The composite domain_report intentionally overlaps with several other tools, which creates minor selection ambiguity, though its description makes the combined-purpose clear.
All tool names follow a consistent pattern: lowercase snake_case noun phrases describing the data or intelligence returned (dns_lookup, domain_intel, domain_report, email_deliverability, subdomains, tech_stack). This is a predictable and uniform convention.
Six tools is well-scoped for a domain and company intelligence server. Each tool covers a distinct reconnaissance area, and the composite domain_report justifies its place without bloating the tool surface.
The server covers the main domain-intelligence lifecycle: DNS, registration, subdomains, email authentication, and technology fingerprinting. Minor gaps exist, such as no direct company-name-to-domain lookup and limited DNS record types, but agents can work around these for most lead-qualification and recon workflows.