Skip to main content
Glama
badchars

osint-mcp-server

by badchars

vt_subdomains

Enumerate subdomains for a domain using VirusTotal data to identify potential attack surfaces and infrastructure components.

Instructions

Enumerate subdomains for a domain via VirusTotal. Requires VT_API_KEY.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
domainYesDomain to enumerate subdomains for
limitNoMaximum subdomains to return (default: 40)

Implementation Reference

  • The implementation of the `vtSubdomains` function which fetches subdomains for a given domain from the VirusTotal API.
    export async function vtSubdomains(domain: string, apiKey: string, limit = 40): Promise<VtSubdomainsResult> {
      const data = await vtFetch(`/domains/${encodeURIComponent(domain)}/subdomains?limit=${limit}`, apiKey);
      if (!data) return { domain, subdomains: [], total: 0 };
    
      const subdomains: string[] = (data.data ?? []).map((d: any) => d.id);
      return { domain, subdomains, total: subdomains.length };
    }
  • The TypeScript interface defining the result structure for `vt_subdomains`.
    interface VtSubdomainsResult {
      domain: string;
      subdomains: string[];
      total: number;
    }
  • The registration of the `vt_subdomains` tool within the tool definition framework.
    const vtSubdomainsTool: ToolDef = {
      name: "vt_subdomains",
      description: "Enumerate subdomains for a domain via VirusTotal. Requires VT_API_KEY.",
      schema: {
        domain: z.string().describe("Domain to enumerate subdomains for"),
        limit: z.number().optional().describe("Maximum subdomains to return (default: 40)"),
      },
      execute: async (args, ctx) => {
        const key = requireApiKey(ctx.config.vtApiKey, "VirusTotal", "VT_API_KEY");
        return json(await vtSubdomains(args.domain as string, key, args.limit as number | undefined));
      },
    };
Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It mentions the API key requirement, which is useful, but fails to describe other critical behaviors: whether this is a read-only operation, potential rate limits, what the output format looks like, or any constraints on the domain parameter. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding how it behaves.

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—a single sentence that efficiently communicates the core purpose and key requirement. Every word earns its place with zero wasted information, making it easy to parse and understand quickly.

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 tool's complexity (external API integration, no annotations, no output schema), the description is incomplete. It omits critical context: output format, error handling, rate limits, whether it's read-only or has side effects, and how it differs from sibling tools. For a tool with no structured behavioral hints, the description should provide more operational guidance.

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%, so the schema fully documents both parameters (domain and limit). The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema, such as domain format examples or limit constraints. With high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate as the description doesn't compensate but also doesn't need to.

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 VirusTotal'), making the purpose unambiguous. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'st_subdomains' or 'osint_domain_recon', which appear to offer similar functionality through different services.

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?

The description implies usage context by specifying 'via VirusTotal' and mentioning the required API key, which helps identify when this tool is appropriate. However, it lacks explicit guidance on when to choose this over alternatives like 'st_subdomains' or 'osint_domain_recon', nor does it mention any exclusions or prerequisites beyond the API key.

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