Agent Utility Suite (x402)

Domain email and web profile

domain_enrich

Read-only

Answers "Who hosts this company's email, and is it configured properly?" and "Which SaaS tools does this company use?". Profiles a domain from live DNS and its website: MX records and the inferred email provider (Google Workspace, Microsoft 365, …), SPF and DMARC configuration and policy, services the domain has verified ownership with (from TXT records: Google, Microsoft, Stripe, Atlassian, …), whether the website is reachable over HTTPS, and stack and security headers (Server, X-Powered-By, HSTS, CSP). Use it for lead enrichment, email deliverability checks, vendor due diligence or security reviews. You are only charged when a result is returned: invalid input (400) and upstream failures (4xx/5xx) are not settled. Costs $0.004 USDC per call via x402. Paid per call with x402 inside MCP (see the server instructions).

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`via`	No	Optional: the tool whose next_calls suggested this call (filled in for you).
`domain`	Yes	Domain to profile, e.g. example.com. A full URL is accepted; its hostname is used.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed1 schema field changedOct 12, 2026

addedInput schema / properties / via

Added value: +{
+  "description": "Optional: the tool whose next_calls suggested this call (filled in for you).",
+  "maxLength": 64,
+  "type": "string"
+}

First observedOct 6, 2026

TDQS

A4.3/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/openWorld/non-destructive, but the description adds genuinely new behavioral context beyond them: live-lookup semantics, the billing model ('charged only when a result is returned'), the non-settlement of 400/4xx/5xx failures, and the exact cost ($0.004 USDC via x402). That payment/failure transparency is high-value information an agent needs before calling.

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?

Front-loads what the tool does, then moves through outputs, use cases, billing, and cost with no filler. The two quoted framing questions are slightly verbose but earn their place by making the use cases concrete.

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

Completeness4/5

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

For a read-only profiling tool with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description covers what is profiled, why to use it, and payment behavior. It stops short of describing return structure/pagination, but with no output schema declared this is a minor gap rather than a blocking one.

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 coverage is 100%, so both parameters (domain and via) are fully documented in the schema, including that a full URL is accepted and only its hostname is used. The description adds no further parameter detail, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Profiles a domain from live DNS and its website') and then enumerates exactly what is extracted: MX records, inferred email provider, SPF/DMARC, verified services from TXT, HTTPS reachability, and stack/security headers. An agent can distinguish this domain-level DNS/web profiling from siblings like company_profile or email_verify without opening a schema.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Explicitly lists when to use it: 'lead enrichment, email deliverability checks, vendor due diligence or security reviews.' This is clear usage context, but no alternative siblings are named or excluded, and there is no guidance on when a different tool would be preferable.

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

All Agent Utility Suite (x402) tools Inspect

Try in Browser

Let your AI agent see the webWeb-to-screenshot MCP for Claude, Cursor and Codex. No cookie banners. Free to start.snap-render.comAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources

Need Help?