Get an account health snapshot for your NsLookup.io monitoring: an aggregated 0-100 health score with per-subsystem breakdown (uptime, SSL, DNS, propagation, VMC, WHOIS) plus your current product limits/quota. Requires sign-in to your NsLookup.io account (or an API token).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
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?
With no annotations, the description carries the burden of explaining relevant behavior. It discloses the authentication requirement and what the output contains (health score, subsystem breakdown, quota). It does not mention whether the operation is read-only or any error behaviors, but the word 'snapshot' and 'Get' reasonably imply a non-mutating read.
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 two sentences, front-loaded with the primary purpose, and every phrase adds useful detail (aggregated score, breakdown categories, quota, authentication requirement). There is no redundancy or filler.
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 (no params, no output schema, no nested objects), the description adequately covers what the tool does and what it returns. It explains the output structure well enough for an agent to understand the value and prerequisites without additional context.
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 tool has zero parameters, so the schema provides no semantic information to add. Per the rubric, the baseline for 0 parameters is 4, and the description does not need to explain anything beyond what it already does.
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 clearly identifies the tool as an account health snapshot with a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('account health snapshot for NsLookup.io monitoring'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by explicitly listing the aggregated 0-100 score and per-subsystem breakdown, making its unique role clear.
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 implies its use case: getting a high-level overview of account health and limits, as opposed to individual checks like uptime_check or ssl_certificate. It clearly states the prerequisite of signing in, but does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternatives, so it gets a 4 rather than a 5.
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.
