Blackveil DNS

brand_audit_batch_start

Start an asynchronous audit for up to 50 domains to identify brand-related DNS and email security risks. Returns a job ID for tracking and report retrieval.

Instructions

Enqueue an async brand audit across up to 50 target domains with optional standard/deep discovery depth, brand aliases, and caller-supplied candidate domains. Returns { auditId, queuedAt, targetCount, etaSeconds } immediately; poll with brand_audit_status and fetch results with brand_audit_get_report once complete. Each target consumes 1 unit of the monthly BRAND_AUDIT_QUOTAS budget.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`view`	No	Output view mode. 'registrar_complement' produces a registrar-complement payload; requires enterprise tier. Default 'standard'.
`depth`	No	Discovery depth. standard is default; deep expands candidate seeding and enrichment fanout.
`format`	No	Inline output mode. Defaults to "both".
`domains`	Yes	Domains to audit (max 50 per batch). Duplicates are merged.
`planner_mode`	No	Planner mode for staged discovery fanout. observe emits metrics; enforce applies candidate-backed signal caps.
`brand_aliases`	No	Optional public brand aliases to seed, such as product or legal-entity labels.
`discovery_mode`	No	Brand-discovery pipeline mode. classic = legacy sweep; tiered = tenant/graph/evidence wrappers first (BlackVeil-internal).
`min_confidence`	No	Drop candidates whose combined confidence falls below this threshold (0-1, default 0.5).
`candidate_domains`	No	Optional candidate domains supplied by the caller for corroboration.
`ownership_verified`	No	Caller attests that the target domains are owned or authorized for scanning. Required when discovery_mode is "tiered" and the caller is not an enterprise/owner/partner principal.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`score`	Yes
`passed`	Yes
`partial`	No
`category`	Yes
`findings`	Yes
`checkStatus`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed2 schema fields changedv3.78.0Sep 9, 2026

changedInput schema / properties / view / description

Previous value: -"Output view mode. 'csc_complement' produces a CSC-tuned payload; requires enterprise tier. Default 'standard'."New value: +"Output view mode. 'registrar_complement' produces a registrar-complement payload; requires enterprise tier. Default 'standard'."

changedInput schema / properties / view / enum

Previous value: -[
-  "standard",
-  "csc_complement"
-]New value: +[
+  "standard",
+  "registrar_complement"
+]

Changed2 schema fields changedv3.54.0Aug 19, 2026
- addedOutput schema / properties / checkStatus
```
Added value: +{
+  "type": "string"
+}
```
- addedOutput schema / properties / partial
```
Added value: +{
+  "type": "boolean"
+}
```
First observedv3.29.7Jul 5, 2026

TDQS

A4.6/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

The description discloses the async behavior, immediate return payload shape, quota cost per target, and the follow-up polling/report tools. With annotations already indicating readOnlyHint=false, openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=false, destructiveHint=false, the description adds the important context that this is a queued operation and consumes budget. It does not mention specific permission requirements for enterprise tier beyond the schema's view field note, but the async and quota context is substantial.

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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with the primary action and return type, then the workflow continuation and quota note. Every sentence earns its place and none repeat the schema.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need no further explanation; the description covers the async handoff, quota consequence, and sibling tools. It could be more complete by noting that tiered discovery requires ownership_verified for non-enterprise callers, but that is already detailed in the input schema.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3; the description adds valuable semantic context by explaining the async workflow, the returned envelope fields, and quota consumption. However, it does not expand on the meaning of less-common parameters such as planner_mode or discovery_mode beyond their schema descriptions, so it doesn't quite reach a 5.

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 a specific verb ('Enqueue'), a resource ('an async brand audit'), and key scope constraints ('up to 50 target domains' with optional discovery layers). It also names sibling tools for status and report retrieval, so an agent can distinguish this start action from brand_audit_status and brand_audit_get_report.

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

Usage Guidelines5/5

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

The description explicitly routes the agent to poll with brand_audit_status and fetch results with brand_audit_get_report, providing a complete start→poll→fetch workflow. It also notes quota consumption, which helps agents decide whether to invoke this tool versus a cheaper or single-domain alternative such as brand_audit_single.

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

Deploy Server