MX lookup for a domain: its mail exchanger records and their addresses.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| domain | Yes | Domain name, e.g. deinkunde.com |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| ok | No | ||
| found | No | ||
| domain | No | ||
| servers | 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": {
+ "domain": {
+ "anyOf": [
+ {
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ {
+ "type": "null"
+ }
+ ]
+ },
+ "found": {
+ "anyOf": [
+ {
+ "type": "boolean"
+ },
+ {
+ "type": "null"
+ }
+ ]
+ },
+ "ok": {
+ "anyOf": [
+ {
+ "type": "boolean"
+ },
+ {
+ "type": "null"
+ }
+ ]
+ },
+ "servers": {
+ "anyOf": [
+ {
+ "items": {
+ "additionalProperties": {},
+ "properties": {
+ "exchange": {
+ "anyOf": [
+ {
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ {
+ "type": "null"
+ }
+ ]
+ },
+ "ipv4": {
+ "anyOf": [
+ {
+ "items": {
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "type": "array"
+ },
+ {
+ "type": "null"
+ }
+ ]
+ },
+ "ipv6": {
+ "anyOf": [
+ {
+ "items": {
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "type": "array"
+ },
+ {
+ "type": "null"
+ }
+ ]
+ },
+ "priority": {
+ "anyOf": [
+ {
+ "type": "number"
+ },
+ {
+ "type": "null"
+ }
+ ]
+ },
+ "private": {
+ "anyOf": [
+ {
+ "type": "boolean"
+ },
+ {
+ "type": "null"
+ }
+ ]
+ }
+ },
+ "type": "object"
+ },
+ "type": "array"
+ },
+ {
+ "type": "null"
+ }
+ ]
+ }
+ },
+ "type": "object"
+}Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The annotation readOnlyHint=true already signals a safe read operation. The description adds that the tool returns MX records and 'their addresses,' which is useful output detail, but it does not disclose edge-case behavior such as missing MX records or resolved address semantics. With annotations covering safety, this modest additional context warrants a 3.
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 without filler. It front-loads the core purpose and includes the key output detail ('their addresses'), earning every word.
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 read-only tool with one fully documented parameter, an output schema, and a read-only annotation, the description is mostly complete. However, it lacks any guidance on how this differs from the many DNS-related siblings (e.g., check_dns), so a sentence about when to use it would make it fully complete.
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?
Input schema coverage is 100% with the 'domain' parameter already well-described ('Domain name, e.g. deinkunde.com'). The tool description does not add any parameter-level detail beyond what the schema provides, 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's specific action: 'MX lookup for a domain' and specifies what it returns ('its mail exchanger records and their addresses'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like check_dns (generic DNS), dkim_check, and dmarc_check which focus on other record types.
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 phrase 'for a domain' provides clear context for when to use this tool. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusion scenarios (e.g., when to use check_dns instead), so it lacks the explicit when/when-not guidance that would earn 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.
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.