Skip to main content
Glama
dewhush

Pathfinder

by dewhush
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

Subdomain Enum

subdomain_enum

Discover subdomains for a domain via passive sources like CT logs, passive DNS, and scan archives, with optional source selection and scan-token chaining.

Instructions

Passive subdomain enumeration for a domain.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
domainYesRoot domain, e.g. "example.com".
sourceNoWhich source(s) to query. Default "all" merges everything: certspotter (CT log), hackertarget (hostsearch), otx (AlienVault passive DNS), urlscan (scan archive), plus the local "subfinder" binary if installed. Any single name can be passed to use one source only.all
from_tokenNoOptional scan_token from an earlier call.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
resultYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed1 schema field changed
    • changedInput schema / properties / source / description
      Previous value: -"\"crtsh\" (certificate transparency, no deps),\n    \"subfinder\" (needs the subfinder binary),\n    or \"all\" (default — merge both)."New value: +"Which source(s) to query. Default \"all\" merges everything:\n    certspotter (CT log), hackertarget (hostsearch),\n    otx (AlienVault passive DNS), urlscan (scan archive),\n    plus the local \"subfinder\" binary if installed.\n    Any single name can be passed to use one source only."
  2. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

C2.9/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries full behavioral burden. It discloses only that enumeration is 'passive' (no direct target contact), but says nothing about external source dependencies, rate limits, or whether results are merged/deduplicated. For a 3-param recon tool with zero annotation coverage, this is thin.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness3/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

A single front-loaded sentence with zero waste, but for a tool with three parameters and no annotations it crosses from concise into under-specified. Efficiency here reflects absence of content rather than disciplined editing.

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?

Schema is fully documented and an output schema exists, so return values need not be explained. However, for a recon tool with no annotations, the description omits any behavioral context (passive-source guarantees, environment/binary dependencies) that an agent would need to call it confidently.

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%, and the source parameter's schema text already documents the merge behavior and each source name in detail. The description adds no parameter meaning beyond the schema, so baseline 3 applies.

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?

Specific verb+resource: 'Passive subdomain enumeration for a domain' tells an agent exactly what the tool returns. The 'passive' qualifier distinguishes it from active siblings like dns_resolve or port_scan, but no sibling is named explicitly.

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 when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no routing to alternatives such as endpoint_discover or dns_resolve. The agent must infer context from the tool name and siblings alone.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools