Scan a domain's email security posture: SPF, DKIM, DMARC, and BIMI configuration. Returns per-indicator scores and detected issues so you can see how well the domain is protected against spoofing and phishing.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| domain | Yes | Domain name to scan (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?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool returns per-indicator scores and detected issues, but it does not explicitly state whether the operation is read-only, requires authentication, or has any side effects. For a scanner, read-only is implied but not stated, leaving some ambiguity.
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, focused sentence that front-loads the purpose and provides the key output details. Every word contributes value, with no redundancy or unnecessary information.
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 simplicity (one parameter, no output schema), the description covers the essential aspects: what is scanned, which indicators are evaluated, and what is returned (scores and issues). It does not explain the scoring scale or issue types, but it is sufficiently complete for a straightforward scanner tool.
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?
The input schema has 100% coverage with a clear description for the only parameter 'domain'. The tool description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, such as format examples or constraints, so the 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 'Scan' and clearly defines the resource as 'a domain's email security posture' with the exact protocols (SPF, DKIM, DMARC, BIMI). This distinguishes the tool from broader siblings like security_scan or dns_lookup, which focus on general security or DNS.
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 clearly implies the appropriate use case: assessing a domain's email security against spoofing and phishing. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or contrast it with sibling alternatives such as bimi_check or security_scan, though the email-specific focus provides adequate contextual guidance.
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.
Tools have mostly distinct purposes, e.g., dns_lookup vs dns_record vs dns_propagation are different operations. A few overlaps like bimi_check versus bimi_vmc and dns_lookup versus dns_record could cause slight confusion, but descriptions are clear enough.
All tools use snake_case with consistent verb_noun pattern (e.g., dns_lookup, bimi_check, uptime_check). The my_* prefix for account-specific tools provides a clear sub-pattern. No mixed conventions.
23 tools is somewhat high but justified for a DNS/domain monitoring server covering lookups, health checks, security, SSL, RDAP, BIMI, uptime, and account management. Each tool adds distinct value, though a few could be merged.
Covers DNS, SSL, security, hosting, BIMI, RDAP, and account monitoring comprehensively. Minor gaps: no direct WHOIS (RDAP covers registration) and no DNS record modification tools (read-only focus). Overall well-rounded.
