Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In

tech-risk

by io.github.rezearcher
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

enrich_domain

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).

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": "enrich_domain"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
domainYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Added

TDQS

B3.1/5.0
Behavior4/5

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.

Conciseness3/5

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.

Completeness3/5

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.

Parameters2/5

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.

Purpose4/5

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.

Usage Guidelines2/5

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.

All tech-risk toolsInspect
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