Check a domain's DKIM public key for a given selector: fetch it and validate it.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| domain | Yes | Domain name, e.g. deinkunde.com | |
| selector | Yes | DKIM selector, e.g. google or default |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| ok | No | ||
| bits | No | ||
| tags | No | ||
| error | No | ||
| found | No | ||
| domain | No | ||
| hasKey | No | ||
| record | No | ||
| keyType | No | ||
| selector | No | ||
| warnings | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Output schema / (root)Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+ "$schema": "http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#",
+ "additionalProperties": {},
+ "properties": {
+ "bits": {
+ "anyOf": [
+ {
+ "type": "number"
+ },
+ {
+ "type": "null"
+ }
+ ]
+ },
+ "domain": {
+ "anyOf": [
+ {
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ {
+ "type": "null"
+ }
+ ]
+ },
+ "error": {
+ "anyOf": [
+ {
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ {
+ "type": "null"
+ }
+ ]
+ },
+ "found": {
+ "anyOf": [
+ {
+ "type": "boolean"
+ },
+ {
+ "type": "null"
+ }
+ ]
+ },
+ "hasKey": {
+ "anyOf": [
+ {
+ "type": "boolean"
+ },
+ {
+ "type": "null"
+ }
+ ]
+ },
+ "keyType": {
+ "anyOf": [
+ {
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ {
+ "type": "null"
+ }
+ ]
+ },
+ "ok": {
+ "anyOf": [
+ {
+ "type": "boolean"
+ },
+ {
+ "type": "null"
+ }
+ ]
+ },
+ "record": {
+ "anyOf": [
+ {
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ {
+ "type": "null"
+ }
+ ]
+ },
+ "selector": {
+ "anyOf": [
+ {
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ {
+ "type": "null"
+ }
+ ]
+ },
+ "tags": {
+ "anyOf": [
+ {
+ "items": {
+ "additionalProperties": {},
+ "properties": {
+ "tag": {
+ "anyOf": [
+ {
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ {
+ "type": "null"
+ }
+ ]
+ },
+ "value": {
+ "anyOf": [
+ {
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ {
+ "type": "null"
+ }
+ ]
+ }
+ },
+ "type": "object"
+ },
+ "type": "array"
+ },
+ {
+ "type": "null"
+ }
+ ]
+ },
+ "warnings": {
+ "anyOf": [
+ {
+ "items": {
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "type": "array"
+ },
+ {
+ "type": "null"
+ }
+ ]
+ }
+ },
+ "type": "object"
+}Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The readOnlyHint annotation declares the operation is read-only, and the description adds that it fetches and validates the key. However, it does not explain what 'validate' entails, error behavior, or any prerequisites, leaving some gaps beyond the annotation.
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 sentence that is front-loaded with the action (Check) and the resource (DKIM public key), then clarifies via 'fetch it and validate it.' Every word earns its place, with no filler or redundancy.
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 two-parameter read-only tool with an output schema and clear annotations, the description provides adequate context. It explains the core behavior, and the output schema covers return values, so no significant detail is missing.
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 description coverage is 100%, with both 'domain' and 'selector' already described with examples. The description merely restates these concepts without adding extra semantic detail, so it meets the baseline but does not exceed it.
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 a domain's DKIM public key for a given selector, and explains it fetches and validates it. This specific verb+resource combination distinguishes it from sibling tools like dmarc_check, spf_check, and mx_lookup.
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?
There is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool over alternatives, but the name and description imply usage for DKIM key validation. The sibling list shows related DNS tools, yet no comparisons or exclusions are mentioned.
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 cluster around overlapping diagnostics, such as asn_lookup vs ip_geolocation and website_status vs response_time/redirect_check/http_headers. Descriptions generally clarify the differences, but the boundaries between some tools are not immediately obvious.
Naming conventions are mixed: check_dns and check_ssl use verb-first, while dkim_check, spf_check, and hsts_check use noun-first. There are also varied styles like dns_propagation, domain_expiry, and whois, making the pattern inconsistent but still readable.
At 20 tools, the server falls into the borderline heavy range. Most tools address a distinct diagnostic need, but some could be consolidated, such as website_status overlapping with response_time and redirect_check.
The toolkit covers the core read-only network/domain diagnostic domain well: DNS, email authentication, SSL/TLS, WHOIS, IP intelligence, and website availability. Minor gaps like traceroute or DNSSEC validation exist, but there are no critical missing operations for the apparent purpose.