Skip to main content
Glama
badchars

osint-mcp-server

by badchars

st_subdomains

Enumerate subdomains for a domain using SecurityTrails data to identify attack surfaces and perform reconnaissance in OSINT investigations.

Instructions

Enumerate subdomains for a domain via SecurityTrails. Returns FQDNs. Requires ST_API_KEY.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
domainYesDomain to enumerate subdomains for

Implementation Reference

  • The implementation of the st_subdomains tool handler which fetches subdomains from SecurityTrails API.
    export async function stSubdomains(domain: string, apiKey: string): Promise<StSubdomainsResult> {
      const data = await stFetch(`/domain/${encodeURIComponent(domain)}/subdomains`, apiKey);
      const subs: string[] = (data.subdomains ?? []).map((s: string) => `${s}.${domain}`);
      return { domain, subdomains: subs, total: subs.length };
    }
  • Registration of the st_subdomains tool in the MCP protocol tools definition.
    const stSubdomainsTool: ToolDef = {
      name: "st_subdomains",
      description: "Enumerate subdomains for a domain via SecurityTrails. Returns FQDNs. Requires ST_API_KEY.",
      schema: {
        domain: z.string().describe("Domain to enumerate subdomains for"),
      },
      execute: async (args, ctx) => {
        const key = requireApiKey(ctx.config.stApiKey, "SecurityTrails", "ST_API_KEY");
        return json(await stSubdomains(args.domain as string, key));
      },
    };
  • Interface for the st_subdomains result type.
    interface StSubdomainsResult {
      domain: string;
      subdomains: string[]; // FQDNs
      total: number;
    }
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 states the return format ('Returns FQDNs') and authentication requirement ('Requires ST_API_KEY'), which are valuable. However, it lacks details about rate limits, error conditions, pagination, or what happens with invalid domains—important context for a tool that queries an external API.

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 extremely concise—just two sentences that communicate the core functionality, return format, and authentication requirement with zero wasted words. It's front-loaded with the primary purpose and efficiently structured.

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?

For a single-parameter tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the basics (purpose, return format, auth requirement) but leaves gaps. It doesn't explain the response structure beyond 'FQDNs', potential limitations, or how results are formatted. Given the external API dependency and lack of structured output documentation, more behavioral context would be helpful.

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 the single parameter 'domain' clearly documented in the schema. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what's already in the schema, so it meets the baseline for high schema coverage without providing extra value.

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 action ('Enumerate subdomains') and target resource ('for a domain via SecurityTrails'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes from siblings like 'vt_subdomains' by specifying the data source (SecurityTrails), though it doesn't explicitly contrast with other subdomain tools in the list.

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 mentions 'Requires ST_API_KEY' which is a prerequisite, but provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'vt_subdomains' or 'osint_domain_recon'. There's no context about when this specific SecurityTrails-based enumeration is preferred over other methods.

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