Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In

Nightshift Labs: link, token & signature pre-checks

by dev.workers.nightshift-labs.nightshift-x402
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

domain_overview

Read-only

One-call domain overview: registration (RDAP age, expiry, registrar, DNSSEC), DNS (A/AAAA/NS/MX/CAA), email security (SPF, DMARC policy, 0-100 score, issues) and HTTPS/TLS (reachable, HSTS, cert issuer and days left), with merged flags, an 'attention' list and a verdict: ok, check (risk flags found) or incomplete (a data source did not answer; listed in 'incomplete'). Use to vet or monitor a domain with a single paid request. Price: $0.003 USDC on Base per call (x402).

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_overview"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
domainYesdomain name, e.g. example.com

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Added

TDQS

A4.5/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Beyond the read-only and open-world annotations, it discloses the data sources, the merged output fields, the verdict semantics (ok, check, incomplete), how incomplete sources are reported, and the paid x402 pricing. This gives the agent strong behavioral context for outcome interpretation and operational cost.

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 description is front-loaded with the core purpose and then lists the bundled checks, output summary behavior, usage context, and price. Despite being dense, every clause contributes useful information and there is no redundant filler.

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 no output schema and a complex aggregation tool, the description fully explains what is returned, how the verdict is determined, what happens when a data source fails, and the payment model. Nothing essential for correct invocation or interpretation appears missing.

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 schema already documents the single required 'domain' parameter at 100% coverage, including an example. The description does not add syntax, validation, or domain-type constraints beyond what the schema provides, 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 states a specific aggregate resource and enumerates exactly what it covers: RDAP registration, DNS records, email security, and HTTPS/TLS. It clearly distinguishes itself from narrower siblings like domain_whois, domain_dns, domain_email_check, and domain_ssl by emphasizing a 'One-call domain overview' that merges multiple data sources.

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?

It gives a clear usage context: 'Use to vet or monitor a domain with a single paid request.' It implies the alternative is making multiple separate calls, but it does not explicitly name sibling tools or say when a narrower tool would be preferable, so it lacks explicit exclusions.

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

All Nightshift Labs: link, token & signature pre-checks 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