Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Veille MCP Server

Veille MCP Server

Official
by veilleio
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Hybrid

Domain Validation

intelligence_domain
Read-only

Validate domains to detect disposable email providers, webmail, relay services, and education domains, plus DNS health, MX providers, domain history, and optional SSL/TLS certificate transparency.

Instructions

Domain Validation. Check any domain instantly. Detects disposable email providers, public webmail, relay services, and education domains. Returns DNS health with MX provider detection, domain history, and optional SSL/TLS certificate transparency. Credit cost: 2 credits per call.

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": {
      "query": "<query>"
    },
    "name": "intelligence_domain"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
queryYesThe domain to validate. Accepts raw domains (tempmail.org), full URLs (https://www.tempmail.org/page), or domains with www. prefix, all are normalized automatically.
fieldsNoComma-separated list of fields to keep in the response, with dot notation for nested fields (e.g. name,location.city). Does not change the credit cost.
certificate_transparencyNoEnable Certificate Transparency lookup. Returns SSL/TLS certificate history, current certificate, issuers, and all Subject Alternative Names (SANs) ever associated with the domain. Adds 1-5 seconds of latency. Default: false.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

A3.7/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavioral facts: a fixed 2-credit cost per call, that the optional CT lookup adds 1-5 seconds of latency, and that inputs are normalized automatically — all relevant to planning a call.

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 and front-loaded: purpose first, then detection capabilities, then return content, then cost. The opening title restatement ('Domain Validation.') is slightly redundant with the tool title, but nothing else is wasted.

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 by summarizing return content (DNS health, MX provider, domain history, optional CT/SANs), and all three parameters are schema-documented. Only minor gaps remain, such as error behavior for invalid or non-existent domains.

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%, so all three parameters are already documented, including accepted input formats, dot-notation field filtering, and the CT default of false. The description only reinforces the optional nature of CT and the credit-cost invariance, 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?

The description names a specific resource and verb ('Domain Validation. Check any domain') and enumerates what it detects: disposable providers, webmail, relay services, education domains. Its domain-level scope is naturally distinguished from siblings like intelligence_email, intelligence_ip, and intelligence_phone by the tool name and the domain-specific detection list, though 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 Guidelines3/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

'Check any domain instantly' plus the disposable/webmail detection list implies the screening use case (e.g., vetting signups), but there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not statement and no named alternative for related lookups. The credit cost note gives useful invocation context without routing guidance.

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