Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
fingerprint-mcp

fingerprint-mcp

by badchars
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

scan_dns

Enumerate DNS records, analyze email infrastructure, detect subdomain takeover, and fingerprint nameservers in a single call.

Instructions

Comprehensive DNS intelligence: full record enumeration, email infrastructure (MX/SPF/DKIM/DMARC), SaaS inventory from TXT records, nameserver fingerprinting, MTA-STS/DANE analysis, subdomain takeover detection, and reverse DNS. 7 techniques in a single call.

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": "scan_dns"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
domainYesTarget domain

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

B3.1/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavior. It mentions '7 techniques in a single call' but omits critical details like rate limits, authentication, error handling, or whether it's read-only.

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 sentence listing 7 techniques, efficiently conveying scope without wasted words. It could be better structured but is acceptable.

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?

Given the absence of an output schema and annotations, the description should provide more context about return format or usage constraints. It only lists techniques but not what the output contains.

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?

The schema has 100% coverage for the single parameter 'domain' described as 'Target domain'. The description adds no extra semantic meaning, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 it's a comprehensive DNS intelligence tool, listing 7 specific techniques and differentiating from sibling tools like scan_http and scan_ports.

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 does not provide any guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention when not to use it or any prerequisites.

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