CVE MCP Server

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

get_domain_intel

Retrieve subdomains and certificate history for any domain via certificate transparency logs and passive DNS records from CIRCL PDNS.

Instructions

Get domain intelligence: certificate transparency logs (crt.sh) and passive DNS records (CIRCL PDNS). Returns subdomains and certificate history.

Args: domain: Domain name to investigate (e.g. example.com)

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": "get_domain_intel"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`domain`	Yes

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`result`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Apr 14, 2026

TDQS

C2.8/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

No annotations provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It mentions the data sources (crt.sh, CIRCL PDNS) but does not explain rate limits, authentication needs, or whether the data is historical/current. The behavior beyond 'returns subdomains and certificate history' is not transparent.

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

Conciseness4/5

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

The description is short with two distinct sections: purpose and arguments. It is front-loaded with the key action and uses no fluff. Every sentence serves a purpose.

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?

Given the tool has one parameter and an output schema, the description covers the essential function. However, it lacks behavioral transparency and usage guidance, leaving gaps for an agent to fully understand implications. It is adequate but not complete.

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

Parameters2/5

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

Schema has one parameter 'domain' with a title. The description adds an example (example.com) but no additional constraints or format details. Since schema coverage is 0%, the description adds minimal value beyond the schema's title.

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 what the tool does: get domain intelligence from crt.sh and CIRCL PDNS, returning subdomains and certificate history. The verb 'get' and resource 'domain intelligence' are specific. However, it does not explicitly distinguish from sibling tools like 'passive_dns_lookup'.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention prerequisites, limitations, or when to avoid using it. The context is implied but not explicit.

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