Find Shared Dns
find_shared_dnsRead-onlyIdempotent
HackerTarget find_shared_dns lookup.
Input Schema
TableJSON Schema
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| target | Yes |
Hackertarget
Schema Changelog
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
- First observed
TDQS
D1.8/5.0
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description adds no behavioral context beyond the annotations. While annotations (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, etc.) already indicate a safe read operation, the description does not mention input formats, rate limits, or any operational details that would help the agent anticipate behavior.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness2/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely short, but it is under-specified rather than concise. A single phrase that merely echoes the tool name does not earn high marks for structure; it lacks substantive content while still occupying space.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the sparse schema and absence of an output schema, the description needed to explain the tool's purpose and parameters. It fails to do so, making the tool effectively unusable without external context about HackerTarget or shared DNS. The description is incomplete for even a simple one-parameter tool.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has one parameter 'target' with no description, and the schema description coverage is 0%. The description does not explain what 'target' represents (e.g., a domain, IP, or hostname) or how it should be formatted, leaving the agent without essential parameter semantics.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose2/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'HackerTarget find_shared_dns lookup' mostly restates the tool name, adding only the vendor 'HackerTarget' and the generic verb 'lookup'. It does not specify what 'shared DNS' means or what action is performed, so it fails to clearly distinguish from sibling tools like dns_lookup or dns_host_search.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No usage guidance is provided. There is no mention of when to use this tool versus alternatives such as dns_lookup, reverse_dns, or as_lookup, nor any indication of prerequisites or appropriate contexts.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Try in Browser
Glama MCP Gateway
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
TDQS
C2.6/5.0
Disambiguation3/5
Tools like ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_grounded, deep_research, and entity_profile have overlapping purposes, causing potential confusion. However, their descriptions provide some differentiation, so an agent can usually pick the right one with careful reading.
Naming Consistency2/5
Naming is highly inconsistent: mixes verb_noun (ask_pipeworx), noun_verb (reverse_dns), single-word (geoip), and compound phrases (generate_llms_txt). No clear pattern, making it hard for an agent to predict tool names.
Tool Count2/5
44 tools is overwhelmingly high for a single server. The set mixes unrelated domains (network tools, data APIs, memory, prediction markets), suggesting it's a grab bag rather than a focused toolkit.
Completeness2/5
The server lacks a coherent domain, so evaluating completeness is difficult. There are many lookup tools but few for updates or deletes (except memory). The HackerTarget subset is sparse, and the overall surface feels incomplete for any single purpose.