Skip to main content
Glama

Securitytrails

by io.github.pipeworx-io

Securitytrails Dns History

securitytrails_dns_history
Read-onlyIdempotent

Historical DNS records for . Returns past record values with first/last-seen dates for a given record type (a, aaaa, mx, ns, soa, txt). Example: securitytrails_dns_history({ hostname: "github.com", type: "a", _apiKey: "your-key" })

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
typeNoDNS record type: a, aaaa, mx, ns, soa, or txt (default "a")
_apiKeyYesSecurityTrails API key
hostnameYesApex domain / hostname, e.g. "github.com"

TDQS

A3.9/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint. Description adds context with example and clarifies return includes first/last-seen dates, but does not disclose potential rate limits, API key usage nuances, or result volume.

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?

Two sentences plus an example, all essential. Information is front-loaded and no wasted words.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness3/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

No output schema exists, and description only mentions 'returns past record values with first/last-seen dates' without specifying structure (e.g., array of objects). Adequate but could detail return format more thoroughly.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. Description provides an explicit example showing parameter usage and lists record types, adding meaningful context beyond the schema definitions.

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?

Description clearly states the tool retrieves historical DNS records for a hostname, listing supported record types and return values. It distinguishes from sibling tools like securitytrails_domain (current data) and securitytrails_subdomains.

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?

Implies usage for historical DNS lookup via example, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives or when not to use it. No context on prerequisites or constraints.

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

All Securitytrails toolsInspect
Try in Browser
RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

A3.8/5.0
Disambiguation2/5

Multiple tools occupy the same general query/research space: ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_beta (currently identical), ask_pipeworx_grounded, deep_research, validate_claim, entity_profile, and recent_changes all overlap in what they can return. The descriptions are detailed and try to steer usage, but the boundaries are fuzzy enough that agents can easily select the wrong tool.

Naming Consistency3/5

All names are snake_case and descriptive, but there is no consistent verb_noun convention across the set. It mixes bare verbs (remember, recall, forget), noun phrases (entity_profile, recent_changes), domain-prefixed families (securitytrails_*, polymarket_*), and Pipeworx meta-tools (ask_pipeworx_*), so the pattern is predictable only within each family.

Tool Count2/5

35 tools is above the 25+ threshold for a coherent MCP surface, and many are highly specialized (Polymarket arbitrage, AI visibility checks, npm dependency scans) rather than core Securitytrails functionality. The set feels like multiple products merged into one rather than a well-scoped toolset.

Completeness3/5

The broad data-research workflows are well covered: routing, entity resolution, profiling, comparison, validation, subscriptions, memory, and basic Securitytrails domain lookups. But for a server named Securitytrails, there are obvious missing security-intelligence operations such as associated domains, IP/certificate enrichment, and broader DNS infrastructure enumeration.

Resources