Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Harrier

Harrier

by Caleb68864
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

domain_harvest

Collect email addresses and hostnames for a domain from free public sources.

Instructions

Harvest emails/hosts for a domain via theHarvester (free sources).

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": {
      "selector": "<selector>"
    },
    "name": "domain_harvest"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
timeoutNo
selectorYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

B3.4/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Without annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It adds useful context by stating 'free sources', implying limited scope and potential data coverage limitations. However, it does not mention network dependencies, output format, or potential for long execution times.

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 description is a single concise sentence that efficiently communicates the core purpose. It is front-loaded, but its brevity leaves out important details, making it somewhat under-specified for a tool with two parameters.

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

Completeness2/5

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

This is a simple tool with two parameters and no output schema, so the description is the main source of guidance. It fails to explain parameter semantics, usage alternatives, or behavioral caveats, leaving an agent uncertain about how to invoke the tool correctly.

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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must explain parameters. The description implies 'selector' is the domain, but it does not explicitly confirm this or explain the 'timeout' parameter. The only meaningful hint is the phrase 'for a domain', which weakly maps to the required 'selector' field.

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 verb 'harvest' and the resource 'emails/hosts for a domain', and it names the specific tool/method 'theHarvester (free sources)'. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like email_recon by indicating a specific third-party service and scope.

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?

The description implies this tool is for domain-based email/host harvesting, providing clear context for when it is appropriate. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, so no comparison to siblings like email_recon is given.

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