Firmographic + tech-stack enrichment: RDAP registrant/registrar, DNS records, full subdomain enumeration + certificate-transparency history, tech-stack fingerprint, verdict (clear/review/block, based on domain age) for a domain. Cost: $0.005 USDC per call via the shared MCP payment gate (the direct HTTP endpoint GET /enrich/domain is $0.01 — MCP tools/call is gated at a flat $0.005 per request).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| domain | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well by disclosing concrete behaviors: RDAP lookup, DNS records, subdomain enumeration, certificate transparency, tech fingerprint, and a verdict based on domain age. It also transparently states the cost. Missing details like output format and error handling prevent a perfect score.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is reasonably concise but packs a long list of features into a single dense sentence, followed by a pricing caveat that is somewhat tangential. It is not poorly structured, but the mix of functionality and cost makes it less streamlined.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The description enumerates many enrichment components, giving a good sense of capabilities. However, with no output schema, it does not describe the return structure, and it lacks usage context or relationship to sibling tools, leaving gaps for a complex tool.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema has one parameter, 'domain', with zero description coverage. The description only repeats 'for a domain' without adding any format, normalization, or constraints, so it fails to clarify the expected input beyond the parameter name.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly identifies the tool as a comprehensive domain enrichment service, listing specific data sources (RDAP, DNS, subdomain enumeration, CT history, tech-stack) and a verdict. However, it does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling tool 'enrich_tech_risk', so it stops short of a 5.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like enrich_tech_risk. The only comparative instruction is about payment gate versus a direct HTTP endpoint, which is cost guidance rather than usage context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
The tools are organized into clear families (chain, crypto, defi, pm, enrich, scan) and each targets a distinct data type. The preview tools are explicitly labeled as free samples, reducing but not eliminating confusion with their paid counterparts. Some overlap exists between chain_wallet and chain_balance, and between enrich_domain and enrich_tech_risk, but descriptions clarify the difference.
All tools follow a consistent resource_action pattern using snake_case (chain_balance, crypto_funding, enrich_domain). Preview tools consistently append '_preview' to their paid counterpart. The only minor variation is abbreviations like 'tx', 'pm', 'defi', but these are uniform.
At 22 tools, the server is on the heavy side. The eight preview tools duplicate the functionality of their paid versions and inflate the count, though they serve a legitimate 'try before pay' purpose. The remaining 14 paid tools cover a wide range of risk data, making the count borderline appropriate.
The set covers on-chain balances, token security, DeFi yields, crypto prices, funding rates, prediction markets, domain enrichment, tech-risk CVE scanning, and MCP server auditing, which is a comprehensive risk toolkit. Minor gaps exist (e.g., no historical data, no address reputation, no token price by address), but the core workflows are well covered.