Skip to main content
Glama
beaglesecurity

Beagle Security MCP Server

Official

beagle_verify_domain

Verify domain ownership for security testing by implementing file, DNS, or API-based verification methods to enable automated penetration testing.

Instructions

Complete domain verification

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
applicationTokenYesApplication token
signatureTypeYesType of signature verification
pluginTypeNoPlugin type (optional)

Implementation Reference

  • The handler function `verifyDomain` that implements the tool logic for `beagle_verify_domain`.
    private async verifyDomain(args: any) {
      const result = await this.makeRequest("/applications/signature/verify", {
        method: "POST",
        body: JSON.stringify({
          applicationToken: args.applicationToken,
          signatureType: args.signatureType,
          pluginType: args.pluginType,
        }),
      });
    
      return {
        content: [
          {
            type: "text",
            text: `Domain verification result:\n${JSON.stringify(result, null, 2)}`,
          },
        ],
      };
    }
  • The schema definition and registration of the `beagle_verify_domain` tool within the ListTools request handler.
      name: "beagle_verify_domain",
      description: "Complete domain verification",
      inputSchema: {
        type: "object",
        properties: {
          applicationToken: { type: "string", description: "Application token" },
          signatureType: { type: "string", enum: ["FILE", "DNS", "API"], description: "Type of signature verification" },
          pluginType: { type: "string", enum: ["WORDPRESS"], description: "Plugin type (optional)" },
        },
        required: ["applicationToken", "signatureType"],
      },
    },
  • src/index.ts:308-309 (registration)
    The registration of the `beagle_verify_domain` tool handler in the `CallToolRequestSchema` switch statement.
    case "beagle_verify_domain":
      return await this.verifyDomain(args);
Behavior2/5

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. 'Complete domain verification' implies a write operation that finalizes verification, but it doesn't specify whether this is idempotent, what permissions are required, if it triggers side effects (e.g., notifications), or what happens on failure. Critical behavioral traits like error handling or rate limits are omitted.

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 with just two words, front-loading the core action without any fluff. Every word ('complete', 'domain verification') contributes directly to understanding the tool's purpose, making it efficient and easy to parse.

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 complexity of domain verification (likely involving security and configuration changes), no annotations, and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what 'complete' entails (e.g., does it return a status, trigger a process?), what happens after verification, or potential side effects. For a tool that presumably modifies system state, this leaves significant gaps in understanding.

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 parameters are well-documented in the schema itself. The description adds no additional meaning about parameters beyond implying they're used for verification. It doesn't explain how 'signatureType' or 'pluginType' relate to the verification process, nor does it provide examples or contextual usage for these enums.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose3/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description states the action ('complete domain verification') but lacks specificity about what domain verification entails or what resource it operates on. It distinguishes from siblings like 'beagle_get_domain_signature' by focusing on completion rather than retrieval, but doesn't clearly differentiate from other verification-related tools that might exist in the broader context.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing a domain setup first), exclusions, or relationships to sibling tools like 'beagle_get_domain_signature' or 'beagle_start_test'. The description alone offers no context for appropriate usage scenarios.

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/beaglesecurity/beagle-security-mcp-server'

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