Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Bug Bounty Assistant MCP

Bug Bounty Assistant MCP

by rohitprasad-code
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Hybrid

get_dns_records

Retrieve all common DNS record types (A, AAAA, MX, TXT, NS, CNAME, SOA) for a given domain to map its infrastructure.

Instructions

Resolves A/AAAA/MX/TXT/NS/CNAME/SOA records for a domain

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": {
      "target": "<target>"
    },
    "name": "get_dns_records"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
targetYesThe target domain/hostname (e.g. example.com)

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv1.0.0

TDQS

B3.3/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description is the sole source of behavioral info. It says 'resolves' but does not disclose rate limits, authentication requirements, side effects, or output format. This is minimal, leaving the agent without key behavioral context.

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 a single sentence with no extraneous words. It is front-loaded with the key action and list of record types, making it efficient and scannable.

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's simplicity (one parameter, no output schema), the description is minimally adequate. However, it lacks any information about what the tool returns (e.g., raw DNS responses, parsed JSON), which is important for an agent to fully understand the tool's usage.

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 coverage is 100% for the single parameter 'target', which already has a description. The tool description adds no additional meaning or constraints beyond the schema, so it meets the baseline but does not enhance understanding.

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 resolves specific DNS record types (A/AAAA/MX/TXT/NS/CNAME/SOA) for a domain, using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like find_subdomains or check_security_headers by focusing exclusively on DNS records.

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?

The description provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool vs. alternatives, such as find_subdomains or ssl_scan. It implies usage for DNS lookups but does not specify contexts, prerequisites, or exclusions.

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