DataNexus MCP

domain_fetch_domain_history

Read-onlyIdempotent

Fetch historical SSL certificate issuance for a domain from Certificate Transparency logs. Read-only. No side effects. Idempotent. domain: Domain name without protocol e.g. example.com. Required. Returns all past certificates with issuer, validity dates, and SANs in reverse chronological order. Use this to detect domain hijacking or audit unexpected historical certificate issuance. Use domain_fetch_ssl_certificate_chain instead when you only need the current certificate chain. Verified source: crt.sh Certificate Transparency. 4-hour cache. If this tool's response does not serve the user's need, call report_feedback with feedback_type="agent_gap", tool_id="domain_fetch_domain_history", intended_query="{what the user needed}", gap_description="{what was missing or wrong in the result}".

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`domain`	Yes	Domain without protocol e.g. example.com. Required.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

TDQS

A4.4/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

The description reiterates the annotations (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint) with 'Read-only. No side effects. Idempotent.' and adds additional context: '4-hour cache' and 'Verified source: crt.sh'. This adds value beyond the annotations.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is moderately long but each sentence adds value: purpose, idempotency, parameter format, use case, alternative, source, cache, and feedback instruction. It is front-loaded with the primary action. Could be slightly more concise but still efficient.

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?

Given the presence of an output schema, the description does not need to detail return values. It covers purpose, usage guidelines, parameter semantics, behavioral traits, and even includes a feedback fallback. The tool is a simple read-only data fetch, and the description is fully sufficient.

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?

The input schema already has 100% coverage with a clear description for the 'domain' parameter. The description repeats this information but does not add new meaning beyond what the schema provides, so baseline score 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 clearly states the verb ('Fetch'), resource ('historical SSL certificate issuance'), and source ('Certificate Transparency logs'). It also distinguishes from the sibling tool 'domain_fetch_ssl_certificate_chain' by specifying the use case for historical data versus current chain.

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?

The description provides explicit guidance on when to use this tool ('detect domain hijacking or audit unexpected historical certificate issuance') and explicitly names the alternative tool for current certificate needs ('domain_fetch_ssl_certificate_chain').

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

All DataNexus MCP tools Inspect

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

A4.1/5.0

Disambiguation4/5

Tools are grouped into clear domain prefixes (compliance, domain, frontend_security, etc.) with distinct purposes. Minor overlap exists between frontend_security_detect_typosquatting and security_detect_typosquatting, but descriptions clarify the different scope.

Naming Consistency4/5

Most tools follow a consistent verb_noun pattern with snake_case. Irregularities like 'fetch' vs 'audit' and two 'detect_typosquatting' tools exist, but overall naming is predictable within domains.

Tool Count3/5

55 tools is high for a single server given the breadth of domains. Some redundancy (e.g., two typosquatting tools) suggests possible trimming, but the count is justified by the wide coverage.

Completeness4/5

The tool surface covers key operations across domains like compliance, domain, security, legal, and nonprofit. Minor gaps exist, such as limited frontend audit beyond package.json and no general-purpose code scanning.

Resources

Need Help?