Skip to main content
Glama
zscaler

zscaler-mcp-server

Official
by zscaler
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Hybrid

zeasm_get_lookalike_domain

Read-only

Get full detail for one EASM lookalike domain.

Instructions

Get full detail for one EASM lookalike domain.

Read-only. Adds description, registrar/registrant + lifecycle dates, and remediation guidance on top of the triage fields. Look the domain up by its lookalike_raw name (from zeasm_list_lookalike_domains).

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
org_idYes
lookalike_rawYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed4 schema fields changedv0.15.3
    • removedInput schema / additionalProperties
      Removed value: -false
    • addedInput schema / properties / lookalike_raw / title
      Added value: +"Lookalike Raw"
    • addedInput schema / properties / org_id / title
      Added value: +"Org Id"
    • addedInput schema / title
      Added value: +"zeasm_get_lookalike_domainArguments"
  2. Changed8 schema fields changedv0.14.0
    • addedInput schema / additionalProperties
      Added value: +false
    • removedInput schema / properties / lookalike_raw / description
      Removed value: -"The lookalike domain name (e.g., 'example-domain.com')."
    • removedInput schema / properties / lookalike_raw / title
      Removed value: -"Lookalike Raw"
    • removedInput schema / properties / org_id / description
      Removed value: -"The unique identifier for the organization."
    • removedInput schema / properties / org_id / title
      Removed value: -"Org Id"
    • removedInput schema / properties / service
      Removed value: -{
-  "default": "zeasm",
-  "description": "The service to use.",
-  "title": "Service",
-  "type": "string"
-}
    • removedInput schema / title
      Removed value: -"zeasm_get_lookalike_domainArguments"
    • changedOutput schema / (root)
      Previous value: -{
-  "properties": {
-    "result": {
-      "additionalProperties": true,
-      "title": "Result",
-      "type": "object"
-    }
-  },
-  "required": [
-    "result"
-  ],
-  "title": "zeasm_get_lookalike_domainOutput",
-  "type": "object"
-}New value: +null
  3. First observedv0.12.7

TDQS

A4.1/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

The `readOnlyHint` annotation already covers safety; the description adds value by stating the extra data returned (description, registrar/registrant, lifecycle dates, remediation guidance) and that it layers on top of triage fields. This makes the behavior more concrete without contradicting the annotations.

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?

At four short sentences, it front-loads the main purpose, states safety and output additions, then closes with the parameter source. No filler or restatement beyond the necessary 'Read-only'.

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 single-item getter, the description covers the object type, lookup key source, and output categories, which is enough for basic invocation. It is less complete because `org_id` sourcing and exact response structure are absent, but the no-output-schema context makes the provided field list a reasonable substitute.

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?

The description gives real semantics for `lookalike_raw` (the key from the list tool), which is useful beyond the schema. However, `org_id` is left completely unexplained, and with 0% schema description coverage, this leaves a material gap for an agent deciding how to fill the parameters.

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 first sentence uses a specific verb ('Get') with a precise resource ('one EASM lookalike domain'), and the field list ('registrar/registrant + lifecycle dates, remediation guidance') clarifies what 'full detail' means. This distinguishes it from the sibling list tool `zeasm_list_lookalike_domains`.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

It explicitly tells the agent to use the `lookalike_raw` value from `zeasm_list_lookalike_domains`, framing the correct lookup workflow. It doesn't mention alternative tools for getting finding details, but the domain-specific wording and reference to the list tool make the intended context clear.

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