Agent Kiosk

domain_intel

Read-onlyIdempotent

Resolves DNS records, identifies email providers, detects SaaS stack, queries RDAP dates, and discovers subdomains for B2B domain infrastructure profiling.

Instructions

B2B company & domain infrastructure intelligence. Resolves DNS records (A, MX, TXT, NS), identifies email provider (Google Workspace, M365, etc.), detects SaaS tech stack from TXT verification records, queries RDAP registration dates, and discovers active subdomains.

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_intel"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`domain`	Yes	Target company domain or URL (e.g., 'stripe.com', 'vercel.com')

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv2.5.0Oct 18, 2026

TDQS

A3.5/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description usefully adds that the tool reaches out to external infrastructure sources (DNS, RDAP, active subdomain probing), which is meaningful behavioral context. It does not, however, mention rate limits, latency, or partial-failure behavior for lookups across multiple record types.

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?

A single dense sentence with the broad purpose front-loaded and capabilities following. No filler, though the enumeration style trades some scannability for compactness.

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?

With no output schema, the description compensates reasonably by naming the categories of data returned (DNS records, email provider, tech stack, registration dates, subdomains). For a single-parameter read-only tool with rich annotations, this is nearly complete, missing only guidance on when to select it.

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 there is only one parameter, documented in the schema with examples, so baseline is 3. The description does not reference the domain parameter at all, adding no syntax or format guidance beyond what the schema already provides.

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 names a specific resource (domain infrastructure) and enumerates the concrete operations it performs: DNS record resolution for A/MX/TXT/NS, email provider identification, SaaS stack fingerprinting, RDAP lookups, and subdomain discovery. An agent can distinguish this from siblings like github_intel or security_audit purely from the capability list.

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?

There is no statement of when to use this tool versus the alternatives, no conditions or exclusions, and no routing guidance. The capability list implies its domain of applicability but nothing tells the agent when domain_intel is the right call versus web_extract or security_audit.

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