osint-mcp-server

osint_domain_recon

Performs quick domain reconnaissance by combining DNS, WHOIS, crt.sh subdomains, HackerTarget hosts, and email security analysis without requiring 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.

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": "osint_domain_recon"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`domain`	Yes	Domain to perform recon on

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.2.0Mar 17, 2026

TDQS

A4/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations, the description provides good transparency: mentions combination of free sources, no API keys required, and lists the types of data. Does not disclose rate limits or edge cases, but adequate for a simple recon tool.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with purpose, then details. Zero wasted words. Efficient and clear.

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?

Description covers the tool's composite nature and free-source constraint. For a one-parameter tool with no output schema, it is fairly complete. Could mention output format or behavior upon failure, but not critical for an initial recon tool.

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 coverage is 100% for the single 'domain' parameter. Description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema's 'Domain to perform recon on', so baseline 3 applies.

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?

Description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Quick domain reconnaissance combining free sources.' It lists specific data types (DNS, WHOIS, crt.sh, HackerTarget, email security) and distinguishes itself from sibling tools that focus on single sources.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

Implied usage for initial broad recon, but no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. No mention of alternatives despite many sibling tools offering more targeted lookups.

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