Skip to main content
Glama

vibedeploy

by be.vibedeploy

Verify a forms custom sender domain

verify_forms_sender_domain
Idempotent

Check the DNS records for a site's custom sender domain (DKIM TXT + SPF include). Once the DKIM record is observed, the sender domain is marked verified and the relay sends from the custom From (DKIM-signed). Until then it falls back to the platform address. DNS can take a few minutes to propagate — re-run if it fails the first time. Not needed when the site uses a custom smtpRelay.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
siteNameYesThe site whose custom sender domain to (re)check.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
domainYes
statusYespending | verified | failed
lastErrorYes
dnsRecordsYes
request_idNoServer-assigned request correlation id. Quote it when contacting support.
spfVerifiedYes
dkimVerifiedYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.

  1. Changed1 schema field changed
    • addedOutput schema / properties / request_id
      Added value: +{
+  "description": "Server-assigned request correlation id. Quote it when contacting support.",
+  "type": "string"
+}
  2. First observed

TDQS

A4.5/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

The description elaborates on behavior beyond annotations: it checks DNS, marks domain verified once DKIM record observed, switches to custom From with DKIM, falls back to platform address, and mentions DNS propagation delay. No contradiction with 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?

The description is concise: three sentences that each add value. First sentence states purpose, second details verification process and fallback, third gives propagation advice. No unnecessary words.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness5/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the existing output schema and annotations, the description covers all necessary behavioral context: DNS check, verification effect, fallback, and retry guidance. It is complete for an idempotent DNS-checking tool.

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?

The schema has 100% coverage with a single parameter 'siteName' described as 'The site whose custom sender domain to (re)check.' The description echoes this with minimal added nuance (e.g., 'to (re)check'), so baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 that the tool checks DNS records for a custom sender domain (DKIM TXT + SPF include). It distinguishes itself from siblings like verify_custom_domain by focusing on forms-specific sender domain verification.

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?

The description explains when to use the tool (for custom sender domains) and when not needed (when using custom smtpRelay). It also advises re-running if DNS propagation fails, providing clear context but not explicitly naming alternative tools.

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

All vibedeploy toolsInspect
Try in Browser
RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

A3.9/5.0
Disambiguation4/5

Most tools target a distinct resource and action—deploy, file, domain, snapshot, form, analytics—and the descriptions carefully clarify overlap (e.g., deploy_site vs update_site vs begin_deploy). A few pairs like read_file/read_source_file or list_file_hashes/list_source_files could be confused, but the pattern is clear enough to avoid misselection.

Naming Consistency5/5

Every tool follows a consistent verb_noun snake_case pattern (add_, list_, get_, read_, update_, delete_, verify_, etc.), with singular verbs for single resources and plural verbs for batches. This makes the surface highly predictable.

Tool Count2/5

39 tools is well beyond the typical well-scoped surface and many could be consolidated (e.g., read_file/read_files/read_source_file/read_source_files, or the multiple deploy entry points). The broad domain explains some of the count, but the set feels bloated and will slow tool selection.

Completeness3/5

The core deploy lifecycle is well covered: create/read/update/delete sites, patch files, manage custom domains, and configure forms. However, there are notable gaps—snapshots can be created and listed but not restored or deleted, and there is no explicit rollback-to-previous-deploy mechanism, which are common expectations for a deployment platform.

Resources