Skip to main content
Glama

IntoDNS.ai DNS & Email Security Scanner

by ai.intodns

check_bimi

Read-onlyIdempotent

Read-only BIMI readiness check. Parses the default._bimi TXT record, safely fetches the referenced HTTPS SVG, and parses basic metadata from an optional VMC/CMC authority certificate. Returns record syntax, URL reachability/content type, certificate subject/issuer/validity dates, and explicit issues. It does not certify SVG Tiny PS profile compliance, validate the full mark-certificate trust chain, verify trademark ownership, or guarantee logo display by any mailbox provider. Use for a technical preflight before a formal BIMI/VMC review. No auth or destructive actions.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
domainYesDomain name only, e.g. example.com (no URL, path, or port)

TDQS

A4.9/5.0
Behavior5/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already indicate readOnly, openWorld, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior, and the description reinforces this with 'No auth or destructive actions' and 'safely fetches'. It also discloses output scope and limitations, adding behavior context beyond the annotations.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Every sentence contributes value: definition, behavior, outputs, limitations, and use case. It is appropriately compact for a multi-step readiness checker and front-loads the core purpose before diving into specifics.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness5/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

With no output schema, the description carries the burden of explaining expected results, and it does so thoroughly: syntax, reachability, content type, certificate metadata, and explicit issues. It also contextualizes the check within a formal review process, making the tool self-sufficient.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Input schema covers the single `domain` parameter 100% including maxLength and format guidance. The description adds meaning by connecting the parameter to the `default._bimi` record lookup and overall check flow, going slightly beyond the schema baseline.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description opens with 'Read-only BIMI readiness check' and specifies the exact resources involved: `default._bimi` TXT record, referenced HTTPS SVG, and optional VMC/CMC certificate. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like check_spf or check_dmarc.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines5/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Explicitly says 'Use for a technical preflight before a formal BIMI/VMC review' and enumerates what it deliberately does not do, such as certifying SVG Tiny PS compliance or validating the full trust chain. This gives the agent clear when-to-use and when-not-to-use guidance.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

All IntoDNS.ai DNS & Email Security Scanner toolsInspect
Try in Browser
RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

A4.1/5.0
Disambiguation5/5

Every tool has a clearly distinct purpose, and cross-references between tools (e.g., check_spf vs check_email_security vs check_sender_requirements) explicitly state when to use each one. Overlapping behaviors are carefully delineated (e.g., scan_domain vs get_everything_report vs start_deep_scan) with latency and depth tradeoffs explained. No two tools appear to do the same thing.

Naming Consistency4/5

Nearly all tool names follow a verb_noun snake_case pattern (check_*, generate_*, get_*, create_*, scan_*), with precise verbs matching each action. Minor deviations include 'nis2_quickscan' (no verb) and a few compound names like 'whois_lookup', but these are isolated. The variety of verbs is semantically justified by the broad domain, so the naming is predictable and readable.

Tool Count2/5

At 45 tools, this is far beyond the 16-25 'heavy' range and nearly double the 25 threshold. While the server covers a wide range of DNS, email, and web checks, a 45-tool surface is likely to overwhelm agents and increase selection errors. Many tools could be consolidated (e.g., individual check_* tools into one combined check) without sacrificing clarity.

Completeness5/5

The tool set meticulously covers the domain: DNS (SPF, DKIM, DMARC, DNSSEC, propagation, whois), email security (blacklist, FCrDNS, MTA-STS, SMTP TLS, TLSA, BIMI, raw email analysis, test sessions), web security (headers, CSP, HTTP/3), reporting (PDF, snapshots, badges), and compliance (NIS2, Internet.nl deep scans). There are no obvious gaps for the stated purpose of DNS & email security scanning; every check has a corresponding generator or explainer.

Resources