Check if a domain has an AgentStamp DNS TXT record for agent discovery. Verifies _agentstamp.domain.com TXT record and cross-checks with the registry. Free.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| domain | Yes | Domain to check (e.g., shippingrates.org) |
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?
Without annotations, the description explains the verification mechanism (checking _agentstamp.domain.com TXT record and cross-referencing the registry) and notes the tool is free. However, it does not disclose return behavior, error handling, or permission requirements, leaving some behavioral gaps.
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 two-sentence description is concise and front-loaded, with the primary action in the first sentence and a secondary detail in the second. No wasted words.
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?
The description covers the purpose and mechanism for this simple one-parameter tool, but it omits what the tool returns (e.g., boolean, record details). Since there is no output schema, this missing information leaves the description slightly incomplete.
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 defines the single 'domain' parameter with an example, giving 100% coverage. The description adds no additional semantic detail beyond what the schema already provides, so baseline score 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 clearly states the tool checks for an AgentStamp DNS TXT record for agent discovery, specifying the exact record type (_agentstamp.domain.com) and the registry cross-check. This distinguishes it from sibling tools by detailing the specific DNS verification mechanism.
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 provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like verify_stamp or trust_check. It implies usage through its purpose but does not state conditions, prerequisites, or exclusions.
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.
Several tools overlap in purpose, such as bridge_erc8004_lookup and bridge_erc8004_trust_check, trust_check, get_agent, and get_agent_reputation all returning trust or reputation data. Descriptions help clarify the distinctions, but the similarities could lead an agent to select the wrong tool.
Naming uses a mix of conventions: verb-noun (get_agent, search_agents), noun-first (compliance_report, dns_discovery), and prefix-based groupings (trust_*, bridge_*). While snake_case is consistent, the inconsistent verb/noun ordering and synonyms (lookup, check, verify) make it less predictable.
With 19 tools, the set is slightly heavy but still justified by the platform's broad feature set covering trust checks, reputation, teams, wishes, compliance, and credentials. Some tools could be merged (e.g., bridge_erc8004_lookup and bridge_erc8004_trust_check), but the count is not excessive for the apparent scope.
The tool surface focuses heavily on reading and checking trust data, but lacks obvious lifecycle operations such as updating or deleting agents, creating wishes, or managing endorsements. The presence of create_team without corresponding team management (update/delete) leaves a notable gap.
