Skip to main content
Glama
SlanyCukr

Bug Bounty MCP Server

by SlanyCukr

subfinder_scan

Discover subdomains of a target domain using passive enumeration techniques to enhance reconnaissance and security assessment workflows.

Instructions

Execute Subfinder for passive subdomain enumeration with enhanced logging.

Args: domain: Target domain silent: Run in silent mode all_sources: Use all sources additional_args: Additional Subfinder arguments

Returns: Passive subdomain enumeration results

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
additional_argsNo
all_sourcesNo
domainYes
silentNo

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Implementation Reference

  • The handler function for the 'subfinder_scan' MCP tool. It collects parameters, sends a POST request to the backend API endpoint '/api/subfinder', and returns the results with logging.
    @mcp.tool()
    def subfinder_scan(
        domain: str,
        silent: bool = True,
        all_sources: bool = False,
        additional_args: str = "",
    ) -> dict[str, Any]:
        """Execute Subfinder for passive subdomain enumeration with enhanced logging.
    
        Args:
            domain: Target domain
            silent: Run in silent mode
            all_sources: Use all sources
            additional_args: Additional Subfinder arguments
    
        Returns:
            Passive subdomain enumeration results
        """
        data = {
            "domain": domain,
            "silent": silent,
            "all_sources": all_sources,
            "additional_args": additional_args,
        }
    
        logger.info(f"🔍 Starting Subfinder passive enumeration for {domain}")
        result = api_client.safe_post("api/subfinder", data)
    
        if result.get("success"):
            logger.info(f"✅ Subfinder enumeration completed for {domain}")
        else:
            logger.error("❌ Subfinder enumeration failed")
    
        return result
Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions 'enhanced logging' which adds some context, but fails to describe critical behavioral traits such as execution time, rate limits, permission requirements, whether it's read-only or destructive, or what 'passive' specifically entails in terms of network activity. The description is insufficient for a mutation/scanning tool with zero annotation coverage.

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 well-structured with clear sections (description, Args, Returns) and uses only essential sentences. However, the Args section could be more efficiently integrated, and some phrases like 'with enhanced logging' could be more precisely defined to avoid redundancy.

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

Completeness3/5

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

Given that there's an output schema (which handles return values), no annotations, and 4 parameters with 0% schema coverage, the description provides basic purpose and parameter listing but lacks crucial behavioral context and detailed parameter explanations. It's minimally adequate but has clear gaps for a scanning tool in a security context.

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 0%, so the schema provides no parameter documentation. The description lists parameters in the Args section with brief labels, adding some semantic meaning beyond just the parameter names. However, it doesn't explain what 'silent mode' does, what 'all sources' includes, or what format 'additional_args' should take, leaving significant gaps in parameter understanding.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Execute Subfinder for passive subdomain enumeration with enhanced logging.' It specifies the action (execute Subfinder), the resource (subdomain enumeration), and the method (passive with enhanced logging). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'amass_scan' or 'fierce_scan' which likely perform similar reconnaissance functions.

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

Usage Guidelines2/5

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

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention sibling tools like 'amass_scan' or 'fierce_scan' that might offer different subdomain enumeration approaches, nor does it specify prerequisites, ideal scenarios, or exclusions for using this tool.

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

Install Server

Other Tools

Latest Blog Posts

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/SlanyCukr/bugbounty-mcp-server'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server