ドメインの設定を調べる MCP サーバー。SPF / DKIM / DMARC・DNS・SSL 証明書・セキュリティヘッダ・サブドメイン・類似ドメインを、公開情報だけで確認します。登録不要・無料。
Runs a comprehensive health check on a public domain: SPF / DKIM / DMARC for the headline score, plus optional details on email-auth adjacent records (MX, BIMI, MTA-STS, TLS-RPT, DKIM key length), DNS infrastructure (NS, DNSSEC, CAA, AAAA, SOA, TXT), web security (HTTPS, certificate, HSTS, HTTP/2-3, CT log), domain registration (RDAP expiry, registrar lock, DS chain), and brand protection (typosquatting, TLD parity). Returns a structured report with per-category scores, individual diagnostic items, and a critical_issues cross-cut summary. No authentication required.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| domain | Yes | Domain to diagnose, e.g. `example.co.jp`. A URL, an email address, a trailing dot, a port, or an internationalised name are all accepted and resolved to the registrable host — `https://日本語.jp/path`, `info@example.co.jp` and `xn--wgv71a119e.jp` reach the same diagnosis. Names with no public suffix (`localhost`, an IP literal) are rejected. |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It states that no authentication is required and that the tool 'returns a structured report' with a well-defined shape. It does not explicitly say the operation has no side effects, but the health-check framing and the non-mutating language make that clear enough.
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 long but information-dense, with the primary purpose front-loaded and category details packed into a single structured sentence. The final sentence about the report shape and authentication earns its place. It could be slightly more scannable, but every clause adds useful scope.
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 complexity and the absence of an output schema, the description supplies all essential context: input normalization, domain scope, categories checked, report structure, and authentication requirements. An agent has enough information to select the tool and interpret the expected result without additional lookup.
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 already 100%, and the description dramatically enriches the 'domain' parameter: it explains that URLs, email addresses, trailing dots, ports, and internationalized names are all normalized to the registrable host, and it names rejected inputs. This is far beyond the schema's basic type string description and removes real invocation ambiguity.
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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Runs a comprehensive health check on a public domain.' It then enumerates the exact categories covered (SPF/DKIM/DMARC, DNS infrastructure, web security, registration, brand protection), which tells an agent precisely what the tool does and distinguishes it from narrower diagnostic tools even without siblings listed.
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 is explicit that this is for comprehensive domain health diagnosis and limits applicability to 'public domain' inputs; the schema further clarifies that localhost and IP literals are rejected. There are no sibling tools or alternative paths to contrast, so the lack of explicit 'when not to use' guidance is understandable.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Recent tool additions, removals, and schema changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
domain_diagnoseClaiming proves that you control a remote MCP connector. It does not move, proxy, or interrupt the server.
Open the connector listing, choose Claim ownership, and sign in to Glama.
Complete one verification method:
GitHub identity — fastest for official registry listings. For a namespace such as io.github.alice/server, link the matching GitHub user, then choose Claim with GitHub. An organization namespace such as io.github.acme/server also needs that organization to have installed the Glama AI GitHub App and approved its permissions, because GitHub discloses organization membership only to apps it has installed. Use HTTP or DNS when it has not.
HTTP challenge — works when you can deploy a public file. Generate a token, publish the exact JSON Glama shows at /.well-known/glama.json on the same origin as the connector, then choose Check HTTP challenge.
DNS challenge — works when you control DNS but cannot change the server. Generate a token, create the exact TXT record Glama shows, wait for it to propagate, then choose Check DNS challenge.
After verification, Glama sends a confirmation email and gives you access to listing details, thumbnails, health checks, and analytics. Keep the HTTP file or DNS record in place: Glama periodically checks it and ownership remains verified while the token is discoverable.
The HTTP ownership file has this structure:
{
"$schema": "https://glama.ai/mcp/schemas/connector.json",
"claim": "glama_claim_..."
}Claim tokens are opaque, stable, and bound to the signed-in Glama account. They contain no email address or other personal information. If Glama can no longer discover a verified HTTP or DNS token, it starts a seven-day grace period before removing claim-based access. Restore the same token during that period to keep ownership verified. Never publish an email address, Glama session token, GitHub token, or connector credential as ownership proof.
If verification fails, confirm that you copied the current token exactly. The HTTP file must be public, return valid JSON with a successful HTTP response, and stay on the connector's origin. DNS changes may need more time to propagate. A claim cannot transfer to a different origin or hostname: if the connector target changes, Glama starts the grace period and the new target must be claimed separately after the previous claim is released.
For a connector linked to the official MCP Registry, registry updates continue to replace its name, description, and URL by default. After claiming, open Manage connector and enable Use Glama listing details as the source of truth if edits made on Glama should be preserved. Categories and thumbnails are always managed on Glama; registry linkage and technical connection settings continue to sync.
Control your server's listing on Glama, including description and metadata
Access analytics and receive server usage reports
Get monitoring and health status updates for your server
Feature your server to boost visibility and reach more users
To improve your MCP server's ranking:
Claim ownership of the server listing
Complete the server profile with an accurate description and thumbnail
Provide a test profile so Glama can connect to and evaluate the server
Keep tool definitions clear and complete to earn a high Tool Definition Quality Score (TDQS)
Route real usage through the Glama Gateway; more recorded successful server uses also improve the ranking
For users:
Full audit trail – every tool call is logged with inputs and outputs for compliance and debugging
Granular tool control – enable or disable individual tools per connector to limit what your AI agents can do
Centralized credential management – store and rotate API keys and OAuth tokens in one place
Change alerts – get notified when a connector changes its schema, adds or removes tools, or updates tool definitions, so nothing breaks silently
For server owners:
Proven adoption – public usage metrics on your listing show real-world traction and build trust with prospective users
Tool-level analytics – see which tools are being used most, helping you prioritize development and documentation
Direct user feedback – users can report issues and suggest improvements through the listing, giving you a channel you would not have otherwise
The connector status is unhealthy when Glama is unable to successfully connect to the server. This can happen for several reasons:
The server is experiencing an outage
The URL of the server is wrong
Credentials required to access the server are missing or invalid
If you are the owner of this MCP connector and would like to make modifications to the listing, including providing test credentials for accessing the server, please contact support@glama.ai.
No comments yet. Be the first to start the discussion!
Remote MCP server: 19 domain-hygiene and email-auth tools (DNS, SPF, DMARC, DKIM, TLS).
SEO MCP server — backlinks, domain authority, tech stack, and 18+ tools via Common Crawl.
Monitor and manage email authentication (SPF, DKIM, DMARC, MTA-STS, BIMI) for your domains.
DNS and email security scanner with 79 MCP tools for SPF, DMARC, DNSSEC, SSL, and brand audits.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
With only a single tool, there is no possibility of confusing it with another. The tool's purpose is clearly described and distinct.
The sole tool follows a clean verb_noun pattern (`domain_diagnose`), which is consistent and predictable. With one tool there is no risk of mixed naming conventions.
A single tool feels thin for a server that claims to cover many diagnostic categories, but the tool is a comprehensive monolith that handles the full scope in one call. The count is borderline but not unreasonable for a narrow diagnostic purpose.
The tool covers email authentication, DNS infrastructure, web security, registration, and brand protection, which fully covers the domain-diagnosis use case. There are no obvious gaps since the server is designed for diagnosis only, not remediation.
