Bonafido: Business Domain Verification API

Is this business domain real and legit?

verify_domain

Read-onlyIdempotent

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".

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": "verify_domain"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`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"

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed5 schema fields changedOct 10, 2026

addedInput schema / properties / company_name / examples
```
Added value: +[
+  "Stripe"
+]
```

changedInput schema / properties / domain / description

Previous 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."

addedInput schema / properties / domain / examples
```
Added value: +[
+  "stripe.com"
+]
```

addedInput schema / properties / domains / examples

Added value: +[
+  [
+    "stripe.com",
+    "shopify.com"
+  ]
+]

addedInput schema / required
```
Added value: +[
+  "domain"
+]
```

First observedSep 25, 2026

TDQS

A4.2/5.0

Behavior5/5

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.

Conciseness4/5

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.

Completeness5/5

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.

Parameters3/5

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.

Purpose5/5

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.

Usage Guidelines3/5

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.

All Bonafido: Business Domain Verification API tools Inspect

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.