Audit TXT records for stale entries and SaaS exposure.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| domain | Yes | Domain to check (e.g., example.com) | |
| format | No | Output verbosity. Auto-detected if omitted. | |
| force_refresh | No | Bypass cache and run a fresh check. Useful after DNS changes. |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| score | Yes | ||
| passed | Yes | ||
| partial | No | ||
| category | Yes | ||
| findings | Yes | ||
| checkStatus | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Output schema / properties / checkStatusAdded value: +{
+ "type": "string"
+}Output schema / properties / partialAdded value: +{
+ "type": "boolean"
+}Input schema / properties / force_refreshAdded value: +{
+ "description": "Bypass cache and run a fresh check. Useful after DNS changes.",
+ "type": "boolean"
+}Output schema / (root)Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+ "additionalProperties": {},
+ "properties": {
+ "category": {
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "findings": {
+ "items": {
+ "additionalProperties": {},
+ "properties": {},
+ "type": "object"
+ },
+ "type": "array"
+ },
+ "passed": {
+ "type": "boolean"
+ },
+ "score": {
+ "type": "number"
+ }
+ },
+ "required": [
+ "category",
+ "score",
+ "passed",
+ "findings"
+ ],
+ "type": "object"
+}Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already provide readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, indicating safe, non-destructive behavior. The description adds focus on 'stale entries' and 'SaaS exposure' but doesn't disclose caching, rate limits, or error handling. With annotations present, the description provides minimal additional 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.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence with no wasted words, but it is very terse. It is not front-loaded with key usage guidance; it simply states the purpose. Still, it avoids verbosity.
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 has 3 parameters, an output schema, and 100% schema coverage, the description is too minimal. It does not explain what 'stale entries' or 'SaaS exposure' mean in practice, nor does it help the agent understand when to use this tool over similar sibling tools. The output schema exists, so return values are covered, but the overall context is lacking.
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%; the input schema already documents all three parameters with descriptions. The tool description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides.
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 'Audit TXT records for stale entries and SaaS exposure' provides a clear verb (audit) and resource (TXT records), with specific purposes. It distinguishes from sibling tools like check_spf or check_dmarc by indicating a broader audit of TXT records, though it could be more explicit about differentiation.
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?
No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as check_spf, check_dmarc, or check_zone_hygiene. There are no prerequisites, exclusions, or context signals to help the agent decide.
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.
Most tools have clearly distinct purposes, with detailed descriptions that help differentiate overlapping areas (e.g., check_dane vs check_dane_https). However, there are sets of similar tools (brand audit, OSINT, polling) that could cause confusion if descriptions are not carefully read.
The naming is mostly readable but inconsistent: many check_* tools follow a verb_noun pattern, but there are also noun_verb names (scan_domain, cymru_asn), bare verbs (generate), and varied patterns for async operations (discover_brand_domains_start vs discover_brand_domains).
With 80 tools, the server feels overstuffed. It covers multiple domains (DNS, email, brand, OSINT, M365) that could benefit from separation. The high number includes many polling/status tools that add overhead.
The server covers core DNS and email security checks thoroughly, including many edge cases (e.g., BIMI, MTA-STS, subdomain takeover). However, there are gaps like lack of direct DNS record management and some OSINT tools are restricted to operator deployment, leaving agents with dead ends.