Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
AynOps

AynOps

by AynOps
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

full_recon

Run WHOIS, DNS enumeration, port scan, SSL inspection, and technology stack detection in parallel on any domain to obtain combined raw security reconnaissance results.

Instructions

Run all recon tools on a domain in parallel: WHOIS, DNS enumeration, port scan, SSL inspection, and technology stack detection.

Returns combined raw results. The MCP client (Claude) should generate summaries for each section.

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": "full_recon"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
domainYes

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

A3.9/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Without annotations, the description carries the burden. It states parallel execution and raw results, but lacks details on safety (e.g., read-only), rate limits, or return structure beyond 'combined raw results'. It does hint at client-side processing.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is very concise: a one-line purpose, a bullet list of included tools, and a clear instruction for the client. No superfluous words.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (multiple sub-tools) and the presence of an output schema, the description adequately explains what is run and that results are raw. The instruction to generate summaries adds useful guidance.

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 sole parameter 'domain' is required but has no schema description (0% coverage). The description mentions 'a domain' but does not specify format, validations, or examples, leaving the agent to infer.

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?

The description clearly states the tool runs all recon tools in parallel on a domain, listing specific tools (WHOIS, DNS, etc.). This distinguishes it from individual sibling tools like dns_enumeration or port_scan.

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?

The description implies when to use (comprehensive recon) and instructs the client to generate summaries. Although it doesn't explicitly exclude cases, the presence of sibling tools provides context for when not to use (e.g., when only one type of recon is needed).

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools