Skip to main content
Glama
badchars

osint-mcp-server

by badchars

osint_domain_recon

Perform domain reconnaissance by analyzing DNS records, WHOIS data, subdomains, and email security from multiple free sources without API keys.

Instructions

Quick domain reconnaissance combining free sources: DNS (A/MX/NS/TXT), WHOIS, crt.sh subdomains, HackerTarget hosts, and email security analysis. No API keys required.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
domainYesDomain to perform recon on

Implementation Reference

  • The core implementation of the osint_domain_recon logic, aggregating results from DNS, WHOIS, crt.sh, and HackerTarget.
    export async function domainRecon(domain: string): Promise<DomainReconResult> {
      const errors: string[] = [];
    
      // Run all free sources in parallel
      const [aResult, mxResult, nsResult, txtResult, whoisResult, crtshResult, htResult, emailResult] =
        await Promise.allSettled([
          dnsLookup(domain, "A"),
          dnsLookup(domain, "MX"),
          dnsLookup(domain, "NS"),
          dnsLookup(domain, "TXT"),
          whoisDomain(domain),
          crtshSearch(domain),
          hackertargetHostsearch(domain),
          dnsEmailSecurity(domain),
        ]);
    
      // DNS
      const a = aResult.status === "fulfilled" ? aResult.value.map((r) => r.value) : (errors.push(`DNS A: ${(aResult as PromiseRejectedResult).reason}`), []);
      const mx = mxResult.status === "fulfilled" ? mxResult.value.map((r) => ({ exchange: r.value, priority: r.priority })) : (errors.push(`DNS MX: ${(mxResult as PromiseRejectedResult).reason}`), []);
      const ns = nsResult.status === "fulfilled" ? nsResult.value.map((r) => r.value) : (errors.push(`DNS NS: ${(nsResult as PromiseRejectedResult).reason}`), []);
      const txt = txtResult.status === "fulfilled" ? txtResult.value.map((r) => r.value) : [];
    
      // WHOIS
      let whois: DomainReconResult["whois"];
      if (whoisResult.status === "fulfilled") {
        const w = whoisResult.value;
        whois = {
          registrar: w.registrar,
          registrationDate: w.registrationDate,
          expirationDate: w.expirationDate,
          nameservers: w.nameservers,
        };
      } else {
        errors.push(`WHOIS: ${whoisResult.reason}`);
      }
    
      // Subdomains (deduplicated from crt.sh + HackerTarget)
      const subdomainSet = new Set<string>();
      let crtshCount = 0;
      let htCount = 0;
    
      if (crtshResult.status === "fulfilled") {
        crtshCount = crtshResult.value.uniqueSubdomains.length;
        for (const s of crtshResult.value.uniqueSubdomains) subdomainSet.add(s.toLowerCase());
      } else {
  • Registration of the osint_domain_recon tool in the protocol registry, defining its schema and mapping it to the domainRecon function.
    const osintDomainReconTool: ToolDef = {
      name: "osint_domain_recon",
      description: "Quick domain reconnaissance combining free sources: DNS (A/MX/NS/TXT), WHOIS, crt.sh subdomains, HackerTarget hosts, and email security analysis. No API keys required.",
      schema: {
        domain: z.string().describe("Domain to perform recon on"),
      },
      execute: async (args) => json(await domainRecon(args.domain as string)),
    };
Behavior3/5

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 effectively describes the tool's scope (combining multiple free sources) and key operational constraint ('No API keys required'), which is valuable context. However, it lacks details on rate limits, execution time, error handling, or output format, leaving gaps for a tool performing multiple external queries.

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?

The description is perfectly concise and front-loaded: a single sentence that efficiently communicates the tool's purpose, scope, sources, and key constraint. Every word earns its place with zero wasted text, making it immediately understandable.

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 the tool's complexity (combining multiple external queries) and lack of both annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete. While it clearly states what the tool does and its free-source constraint, it omits critical behavioral details like rate limits, execution characteristics, and output format. For a multi-source reconnaissance tool, this leaves significant gaps in understanding how it behaves.

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% with a single well-described parameter ('domain'), so the schema already documents the input adequately. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, but doesn't need to compensate for gaps. The baseline of 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 specific action ('Quick domain reconnaissance') and enumerates the resources it examines: DNS records (A/MX/NS/TXT), WHOIS, crt.sh subdomains, HackerTarget hosts, and email security analysis. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'dns_lookup', 'whois_domain', and 'st_subdomains' by combining multiple free sources into a single comprehensive recon tool.

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?

The description provides clear context for when to use this tool: for domain reconnaissance using free sources without API keys. It implicitly suggests alternatives by listing the specific sources it combines, but does not explicitly name when to use this versus sibling tools like 'dns_lookup' or 'whois_domain' for more targeted queries.

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/badchars/osint-mcp-server'

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