SiteCheck Web Intel

For a subdomain: finds its CNAME, matches the target

security_subdomain_takeover

Read-only

For a subdomain: finds its CNAME, matches the target against the public can-i-take-over-xyz fingerprint list (services such as GitHub Pages, S3, Azure, WordPress), checks whether the target still resolves, and fetches the subdomain once to look for the service's 'unclaimed' page text. Verdicts are evidence, not proof; the list is community-maintained. 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": {
      "subdomain": "<subdomain>"
    },
    "name": "security_subdomain_takeover"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`subdomain`	Yes	Host name to check, e.g. staging.wordpress.com (required)

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`cname`	No
`source`	No
`service`	No
`verdict`	No
`checkedAt`	No
`subdomain`	No
`httpStatus`	No
`serviceStatus`	No
`targetResolves`	No
`fingerprintMatched`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedOct 23, 2026

TDQS

A4.3/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Beyond the readOnlyHint/openWorldHint annotations, the description discloses that the tool performs outbound network activity (resolves the target, fetches the subdomain once), that results are 'evidence, not proof' because the fingerprint list is community-maintained, and that charging is per successful call at $0.002 USDC via x402 with failed calls free. That is exactly the cost, reliability, and side-effect context an agent needs before invoking a paid external-network tool.

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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with the scope ('For a subdomain') followed by the method, then two short caveat/cost sentences. No repetition, and every clause carries distinct information (method, evidence caveat, price, failure policy).

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, so return shape need not be explained, and the description covers the remaining gaps an agent would care about: the exact detection methodology, the trust level of the verdicts, and the payment model including failure behavior. Nothing material for correct invocation 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% with a single required 'subdomain' parameter already documented with a host-name example. The description adds only the loose framing 'For a subdomain' and no additional format, normalization, or edge-case guidance, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 precise, multi-step verb chain on a specific resource: resolve the CNAME, match the target against the can-i-take-over-xyz fingerprint list, check whether the target still resolves, and fetch the subdomain for 'unclaimed' page text. It names concrete example services (GitHub Pages, S3, Azure, WordPress), which makes it unmistakable against siblings like security_dns_records or security_crossdomain_xml_test.

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 by the 'For a subdomain' framing and the takeover-specific fingerprint list, so an agent can infer this is the tool for subdomain-takeover assessment. However, it never explicitly says when to prefer it over adjacent siblings such as security_dns_records, security_dns_caa_records, or security_website_content_crawler, and gives no when-not conditions.

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?