Stablecoin Gateways

Domain DNS WHOIS Email Check

domain_facts

Read-onlyIdempotent

Domain lookup and due diligence (DNS, WHOIS/RDAP, email security): give a domain or hostname, get DNS records (A, AAAA, MX, NS, TXT, CAA), SPF, DMARC, DKIM and MTA-STS email-auth posture, HTTPS/HSTS status, and registrar, creation and expiry dates from registry RDAP. Use to check a website's setup, email deliverability or domain age before trusting it. No personal data. Signed receipt. Price: $0.003 per call via x402 (USDC on Base or XRP on XRPL). The response includes a provenance block (sg-provenance/1): each fact carries its source, source URL, retrieval time and limits; evidence only, no score, rating or verdict. Example arguments: {"domain":"example.com"}.

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": "domain_facts"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`domain`	Yes	Registrable domain or full hostname

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`data`	No	DNS records, email-auth posture (SPF, DMARC, DKIM, MTA-STS), HTTPS/HSTS and registry RDAP dates and registrar for one domain
`receipt`	No	Ed25519-signed, hash-chained receipt; verify free with the verify_receipt tool or POST /v1/verify-receipt. New receipts carry a signed `evidence` object: service_version, data_timestamp, validation, terms_version, terms_hash, provenance_hash.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed1 schema field changedOct 24, 2026

addedOutput schema / properties / data / properties / provenance

Added value: +{
+  "description": "The response includes a `provenance` block (sg-provenance/1): each fact carries its source, source URL, retrieval time and limits; evidence only, no score, rating or verdict."
+}

Changed1 schema field changedOct 24, 2026

changedOutput schema / properties / receipt / description

Previous value: -"Ed25519-signed, hash-chained receipt; verify free with the verify_receipt tool or POST /v1/verify-receipt"New value: +"Ed25519-signed, hash-chained receipt; verify free with the verify_receipt tool or POST /v1/verify-receipt. New receipts carry a signed `evidence` object: service_version, data_timestamp, validation, terms_version, terms_hash, provenance_hash."

Changed1 schema field changedOct 22, 2026

changedOutput schema / (root)

Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+  "description": "Paid result: { data, receipt }. Unpaid calls return an x402 PaymentRequired object instead (isError: true).",
+  "properties": {
+    "data": {
+      "description": "DNS records, email-auth posture (SPF, DMARC, DKIM, MTA-STS), HTTPS/HSTS and registry RDAP dates and registrar for one domain",
+      "properties": {
+        "checked_at": {},
+        "dns": {},
+        "domain": {},
+        "exists": {},
+        "https": {},
+        "mail_auth": {},
+        "notes": {},
+        "rdap": {},
+        "sources": {}
+      }
+    },
+    "receipt": {
+      "description": "Ed25519-signed, hash-chained receipt; verify free with the verify_receipt tool or POST /v1/verify-receipt"
+    }
+  },
+  "type": "object"
+}

First observedOct 22, 2026

TDQS

A4.1/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already establish read-only, idempotent, open-world, non-destructive behavior, but the description adds important context beyond them: payment via x402, signed receipt, no personal data, and provenance semantics stating evidence only with no score or verdict. These are meaningful behavioral traits for an agent to know before invocation.

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 front-loads the purpose and outputs, then usage, then operational caveats, which is effective structure. It is somewhat dense and includes several secondary details, but most sentences earn their place for a paid, evidence-producing lookup tool.

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?

An output schema exists and annotations cover safety behavior, while the description supplies the remaining important context: cost, payment mechanism, data-handling statement, and provenance format. An agent has enough information to decide whether to call it and what to expect.

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 the schema already documents the domain pattern and meaning ('Registrable domain or full hostname'). The description restates 'give a domain or hostname' and provides an example, but adds no further parameter syntax or constraints beyond the schema.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb and resource ('Domain lookup') and enumerates exact artifacts: DNS records, SPF/DMARC/DKIM, HTTPS/HSTS, and RDAP registrar dates. It is clearly more specific than a generic lookup, but it does not explicitly name the sibling `whois` tool, so sibling differentiation is implicit rather than stated.

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?

Gives clear use cases: checking a website's setup, email deliverability, or domain age before trusting it. It does not provide explicit when-not guidance or name alternative tools such as `whois`, so it stops short of full routing guidance.

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

All Stablecoin Gateways tools Inspect

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

Need Help?