JMT x402 MCP Server

domain_trust_score

Assess domain trustworthiness by combining WHOIS, SSL, DNS, and LLM analysis into a 0-100 score to identify risky domains.

Instructions

Domain trust score — WHOIS + SSL + DNS + LLM 0-100 score. Price: $0.04/call via x402 (USDC on Base mainnet).

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": "domain_trust_score"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`domain`	Yes	Domain to assess

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.0.0Jul 13, 2026

TDQS

A3.8/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It mentions pricing but does not disclose behaviors such as error handling, rate limits, or whether the call is destructive. The pricing info is helpful but insufficient for full transparency.

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: one for purpose, one for pricing. Every word earns its place. No redundancy.

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?

For a simple tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description covers inputs, sources, output type, and pricing. It does not specify the exact return format, but it's sufficient for an AI agent to understand the tool's capability.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Input schema has one parameter 'domain' with a basic description. The description adds value by specifying the assessment components (WHOIS, SSL, DNS, LLM) and the output score range, going beyond the schema.

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?

The description clearly states the tool assesses domain trust score using WHOIS, SSL, DNS, and LLM, outputting a 0-100 score. It distinguishes itself from siblings like 'whois' which only performs a WHOIS lookup.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives is provided. The purpose is clear, but usage context is implied rather than stated.

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