Fingerprint the technology behind a website by fetching its homepage. Detects web server, CMS/framework (WordPress, Shopify, Next.js, etc.), CDN, analytics, and returns the page title, final URL after redirects, and key response headers. Use for competitive research and lead enrichment.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| domain | Yes | Domain or full URL, e.g. shopify.com |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of disclosing behavior. It transparently states that the tool fetches the homepage, follows redirects, and extracts specific information. While it does not mention potential blocks, rate limits, or whether JavaScript rendering is used, it provides a solid behavioral picture for a read-only scanning tool.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is compact and front-loaded: the first sentence states the core action and method, and the second sentence enumerates outputs and use cases. Every sentence contributes value without redundancy.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's simple input (one domain parameter), the absence of annotations, and the absence of an output schema, the description sufficiently covers what is needed to invoke the tool correctly and interpret its results. It states the input method, the outputs, and the intended use cases.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the single domain parameter is already well documented in the schema with an example. The tool description adds no new parameter-level meaning beyond the overall purpose, matching the baseline for high schema coverage.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly defines the tool as fingerprinting the technology behind a website via its homepage, listing specific detectable categories (web server, CMS/framework, CDN, analytics) and concrete return values (page title, final URL, response headers). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like dns_lookup and subdomains, which focus on different aspects of domain investigation.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides clear use cases: 'competitive research and lead enrichment.' It does not explicitly mention when not to use the tool or compare it to alternatives, so it falls short of a 5, but the usage context is well established.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Each tool targets a distinct intelligence area—DNS, registration, email, subdomains, tech stack—so the set is largely unambiguous. The composite domain_report intentionally overlaps with several other tools, which creates minor selection ambiguity, though its description makes the combined-purpose clear.
All tool names follow a consistent pattern: lowercase snake_case noun phrases describing the data or intelligence returned (dns_lookup, domain_intel, domain_report, email_deliverability, subdomains, tech_stack). This is a predictable and uniform convention.
Six tools is well-scoped for a domain and company intelligence server. Each tool covers a distinct reconnaissance area, and the composite domain_report justifies its place without bloating the tool surface.
The server covers the main domain-intelligence lifecycle: DNS, registration, subdomains, email authentication, and technology fingerprinting. Minor gaps exist, such as no direct company-name-to-domain lookup and limited DNS record types, but agents can work around these for most lead-qualification and recon workflows.