Bonafido: is a domain a real business site? Verdict, trust score, risk flags.
Scored across 1 tool
Only one tool is exposed, so there is no possibility of overlap or misselection. Its purpose is clearly stated and self-contained.
The single tool follows a clear verb_noun pattern (verify_domain). No inconsistency can arise with one tool.
One tool is slightly under the typical 3-15 range, but it is comprehensive and appropriate for a focused verification API. It is not a trivial tool, so the count is reasonable.
The tool covers resolution, RDAP age, mail setup, homepage state, redirects, contacts, company matching, Wikidata, look-alike detection, verdict, trust score, risk flags, and evidence. This is a complete surface for domain verification.
Verify a business domain, URL or email domain: does it resolve, how old is it (RDAP), mail setup (MX/SPF/DMARC), live homepage vs parked/for-sale page, redirects, contact details, company-name match, Wikidata official website and look-alike detection. Returns verdict (verified/likely_legit/unverified/suspicious/not_found), trustScore 0-100, riskFlags and evidence. Pass company_name to check the domain belongs to that company. Up to 5 domains via "domains".
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| domain | Yes | One domain, URL or email, e.g. "stripe.com". Pass "" when using domains instead. | |
| country | No | ISO-2 country hint | |
| domains | No | Or up to 5 domains at once (no company names) | |
| company_name | No | Expected company name for the single domain, e.g. "Stripe" |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations only declare the read-only/idempotent/open-world safety profile, so the description carries the disclosure burden and does so well: it names the check categories performed, spells out the verdict vocabulary (verified/likely_legit/unverified/suspicious/not_found), the 0-100 trustScore, and that riskFlags and evidence are returned. With no output schema present, this return-shape disclosure is genuinely additive.
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 purpose is front-loaded with the verb before the long enumeration of checks, and the trailing sentences handle the special parameter cases. The single dense sentence listing checks is long but every clause maps to a real capability; little is wasted.
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?
There is no output schema, so the description must carry the return contract, and it does — verdict values, score range, riskFlags, evidence — plus the company_name matching mode and batch limit. An agent has everything needed to invoke and interpret the result.
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?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description restates the company_name purpose and the 5-domain batch cap, which the schema already conveys; it adds only marginal semantic value (that company_name is used for ownership matching) beyond the structured fields.
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?
Opens with a specific verb+resource ("Verify a business domain, URL or email domain") and then enumerates exactly what is checked: DNS resolution, RDAP age, MX/SPF/DMARC, live vs parked homepage, redirects, contact details, company-name match, Wikidata look-alike detection. An agent knows precisely what this tool produces without opening any other field.
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?
It gives operational pointers ("Pass company_name to check the domain belongs to that company", "Up to 5 domains via 'domains'") but never states when to reach for this tool versus an alternative, nor when-not to use it or what prerequisites exist. This is implied usage guidance rather than explicit routing.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Recent tool additions, removals, and schema changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
verify_domain5 fields changedInput schema / properties / company_name / examplesAdded value: +[
+ "Stripe"
+]Input schema / properties / domain / descriptionPrevious value: -"One domain, URL or email, e.g. \"stripe.com\""New value: +"One domain, URL or email, e.g. \"stripe.com\". Pass \"\" when using domains instead."Input schema / properties / domain / examplesAdded value: +[
+ "stripe.com"
+]Input schema / properties / domains / examplesAdded value: +[
+ [
+ "stripe.com",
+ "shopify.com"
+ ]
+]Input schema / requiredAdded value: +[
+ "domain"
+]verify_domainBonafido: is a domain a real business site? Verdict, trust score, risk flags.
Bonafido: is a domain a real business site? Verdict, trust score, risk flags.
Verify business legitimacy by domain or name in <2s. Trust score, verdict, evidence. x402-payable.
AI URL safety validator: SAFE/SUSPICIOUS/DANGEROUS verdict, trust score, threat intel.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.