stack-and-dns-mcp

Inspect Web Technology Stack

inspect_tech_stack

Read-onlyIdempotent

Fingerprint a company's homepage to identify its CMS, e-commerce platform, JavaScript framework, CDN, WAF, analytics, and other tools, plus TLS certificate and HTTP security header checks.

Instructions

Fetch a company's homepage (3-second deadline per attempt, at most 6 s including the insecure-TLS retry and the http:// fallback; transparent bot User-Agent) and fingerprint its technology stack against 455 signatures: CMS / site builder, e-commerce platform, JavaScript framework, CDN & hosting, WAF, analytics, tag manager, marketing automation, CRM, live chat, payments, advertising pixels, consent management and more. Also inspects the TLS certificate (validity, expiry, issuer, hostname match) and grades HTTP security headers (HSTS, CSP, X-Frame-Options, cookies) into a 0-100 security score. Handles redirects, WAF challenge pages (reported as blocked=true), timeouts and unreachable hosts gracefully. Use it to qualify prospects ("is this a Shopify store using Klaviyo?"), research competitors, or pre-screen leads. Cost: 1 credit.

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`domain`	Yes	Domain to inspect. Accepts a bare hostname ("example.com"), a URL ("https://www.example.com/pricing") or an email address ("jane@example.com"). Scheme, path, port and query are stripped; IDN names are accepted.
`includeEvidence`	No	Include the matched pattern and HTML snippet for every detected technology.
`includeRawHeaders`	No	Include the full lower-cased response header map in the result.

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`fetch`	Yes
`domain`	Yes
`billing`	Yes
`blocked`	Yes
`partial`	Yes
`summary`	Yes
`timings`	Yes
`security`	Yes
`warnings`	Yes
`fetchedAt`	Yes
`categories`	Yes
`rawHeaders`	Yes
`inputDomain`	Yes
`technologies`	Yes
`signatureDatabase`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.0.1Nov 4, 2026

TDQS

A4.4/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/openWorld, yet the description still adds substantial non-obvious behavior: per-attempt 3s deadline, 6s total with retry and http:// fallback, bot User-Agent, WAF challenges surfaced as blocked=true, and a 1-credit cost.

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-loaded with the action and outcome, and every clause carries information (timeouts, signature count, security grading, cost). It is dense and the long technology-category list is somewhat list-heavy, but nothing 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?

An output schema exists so return values need no explanation, and the description fully covers timing, retry/fallback, failure modes, and cost — everything an agent needs to decide to call and to interpret a blocked=true 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 domain format rules and the includeEvidence/includeRawHeaders flags are already fully documented; the description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond that baseline.

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 (Fetch + fingerprint) and resource (homepage technology stack) and enumerates the categories detected, which clearly separates it from siblings like verify_email_infrastructure or comprehensive_audit.

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?

Gives concrete use cases ('qualify prospects', 'research competitors', 'pre-screen leads') that make the intended context clear, but never names an alternative sibling or states when NOT to use it (e.g., when to prefer comprehensive_audit).

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

Deploy Server