Check domain reputation: DNS records, blacklists (Spamhaus, SpamCop, SORBS), SPF/DMARC, SSL.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| domain | Yes | Domain name to check (e.g. example.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?
The description goes beyond the annotations (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive) by disclosing the actual checks performed: DNS records, specific blacklists, SPF/DMARC, and SSL. This gives the agent a concrete idea of what the tool inspects. It does not mention output format or response fields, but the provided facets are meaningful 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, tightly packed sentence. It leads with the main action and resource, then enumerates key services using a colon list. Every element adds information; there is no redundant or filler wording.
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?
For a simple, read-only, single-parameter tool, the description sufficiently covers its scope. It lists what the tool checks, which implies output categories. It could mention return format or potential limitations (e.g., rate limits), but the overall context is adequate given the annotations and simple schema.
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 coverage is 100% for the single 'domain' parameter, including an example format. The description adds no extra parameter-level details beyond restating 'domain' in the purpose. Since the schema already documents the parameter well, a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.
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 uses a specific verb 'Check' with a clear resource 'domain reputation' and immediately lists concrete facets: DNS records, blacklists (Spamhaus, SpamCop, SORBS), SPF/DMARC, SSL. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like check_email or check_ip, which target different resource types.
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 context is clear: this tool is for domain reputation checks. It does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives, but the sibling tool names and the resource-specific wording imply the appropriate use case. No exclusion or prerequisite is needed for a single-parameter read-only check.
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 has a clearly distinct purpose targeting specific security checks: domain, email, IP, password, password range, prompt injection, URL, full scan, and skill scanning. There is no overlap in functionality, making it easy for an agent to select the correct tool based on the input type and desired check.
All tools follow a consistent verb_noun pattern with the prefix 'shieldapi.check_' or 'shieldapi.scan_' (e.g., check_domain, check_email, scan_skill). The naming is uniform and predictable, using snake_case throughout without any deviations or mixed conventions.
With 9 tools, the server is well-scoped for a security API, covering a broad range of checks (e.g., reputation, breach detection, threat analysis) without being overwhelming. Each tool serves a unique and necessary function, making the count appropriate for the domain.
The tool set provides comprehensive coverage for security checks, including domain, email, IP, password, URL, and specialized scans for prompts and AI skills. A minor gap is the lack of update or delete operations, but this is reasonable for a read-only security assessment API, and agents can work around this by using the appropriate check tools as needed.