Check whether a domain can actually receive email (has MX records) via a real DNS-over-HTTPS lookup — validate a customer/supplier email's domain before sending or invoicing. An LLM can't know current DNS; this does the live lookup.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| email_or_domain | Yes |
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 fully carries the behavioral burden. It discloses that a real DNS lookup is performed, implying an external call. However, it does not mention rate limits, error handling, or whether it only checks MX records. Adequate but could be more detailed.
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 core purpose, and adds relevant context without fluff. Every sentence adds value, making it highly concise.
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 tool is simple, but the description omits what the tool returns (e.g., boolean or details). Since no output schema exists, this gap reduces completeness. Otherwise, it covers the domain and use case well.
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 single parameter 'email_or_domain' is explained in the description: it accepts an email or domain and checks its MX records. With 0% schema coverage, the description adds significant meaning. However, it could clarify format expectations (e.g., 'user@example.com' vs 'example.com').
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 verb 'check', the resource 'domain email capability', and the method 'DNS-over-HTTPS lookup'. It explicitly distinguishes from sibling tools by focusing on email domain validation, which is unrelated to financial validations like IBAN or ABA.
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 clear context: 'validate a customer/supplier email's domain before sending or invoicing' and highlights that 'An LLM can't know current DNS; this does the live lookup.' While it doesn't explicitly mention when not to use, the sibling tools are all different, making usage unambiguous.
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.
Each tool targets a distinct type of validation or calculation (email domain, payout, reorder point, payment split, ABA routing, EORI, EU VAT, GTIN, IBAN, VAT rate). There is no overlap in purpose, and descriptions clarify the specific identifier or operation.
Most tool names use a verb_noun pattern (e.g., validate_aba_routing, check_email_domain), but some are noun phrases (payout_reconciliation, reorder_point, stripe_connect_split, vat_rate_by_country). While clearly descriptive, the verb-prefix inconsistency slightly reduces predictability.
With 10 tools, the server covers a focused set of commerce validation and calculation tasks without being too sparse or overwhelming. Each tool serves a clear, independent purpose.
The tool set covers key commerce validations (email, bank routing, IBAN, VAT, EORI, GTIN) plus useful calculations (payout, reorder, payment split, VAT rates). Minor gaps exist (e.g., phone/address/credit card validation, currency conversion), but the coverage is coherent for the stated domain.