SiteCheck Web Intel

Subdomain names found in public Certificate Transparency

security_crtsh_transparency

Read-only

Subdomain names found in public Certificate Transparency logs for a domain (via CertSpotter): unique host names and wildcard names, issuers, latest issue date and how many listed certificates are still valid. Returns the first page only (up to 100 certificates) and lists at most 100 names; wildcard names are shown as *.domain. Price: $0.002 in USDC per successful call, paid with x402 (Base, Solana or Arc); failed calls are not charged.

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": "security_crtsh_transparency"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`domain`	Yes	Domain name such as wikipedia.org (required)

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`names`	No
`domain`	No
`source`	No
`issuers`	No
`checkedAt`	No
`nameCount`	No
`latestIssued`	No
`validCertificates`	No
`certificatesListed`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedOct 23, 2026

TDQS

A4.2/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Annotations only declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint; the description goes well beyond them by naming the upstream provider, listing what the response contains (unique host names, wildcards, issuers, latest issue date, valid-certificate count), disclosing the result cap, explaining wildcard formatting, and stating the exact cost and that failed calls are free. These are the operational facts an agent needs before paying for a call.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the purpose, then payload contents, limits, and pricing. Every clause carries information, though the pricing/payment-channel detail is dense and slightly crowds out the operational limits.

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 one required parameter, an output schema, and safety annotations, the description covers everything else an agent needs: source, response fields, hard caps, wildcard convention, and billing behavior. Nothing material is 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?

Schema coverage is 100% for the single 'domain' parameter, so the schema already defines its meaning and example. The description adds only the wildcard output formatting note, not any new semantics about the input itself. Baseline 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?

States a specific resource (subdomain names) and its source (public Certificate Transparency logs via CertSpotter) with an explicit verb framing. This is clearly distinguishable from siblings like security_dns_records or security_ssl_cert_chain, which query different data.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines3/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Usage is implied — subdomain enumeration for a domain — but there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance or routing to alternatives such as security_subdomain_takeover or security_dns_records. The pagination caveat (first page only, max 100 certificates and 100 names) implicitly tells the agent this is not exhaustive enumeration, which is a useful usage boundary.

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

All SiteCheck Web Intel 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?