Skip to main content
Glama

IntoDNS.ai DNS & Email Security Scanner

by ai.intodns

check_blacklist

Read-onlyIdempotent

Read-only query against the currently configured public DNSBL/RBL providers (roughly 60, with noisy providers explicitly disabled). Provide either domain to resolve and inspect its MX IPv4 addresses or an IPv4 ip for a direct check; at least one is required. Returns each provider's listed/clean result, severity, removal metadata, plus unavailable and disabled provider evidence so timeouts are not misreported as clean. Use for mail-server reputation triage; it is not a delisting service. No auth or destructive actions.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
ipNoIPv4 address to check directly
domainNoDomain name only, e.g. example.com (no URL, path, or port)

TDQS

A4.5/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already cover read-only/idempotent/non-destructive. The description adds valuable context: noisy providers are disabled, and it returns evidence of unavailable/disabled providers so timeouts aren't misreported as clean. This goes beyond the annotation baseline.

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?

Five sentences, each serving a purpose: scope, input specification, output details, usage intent, and safety. Front-loaded with the core purpose. Zero redundancy.

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?

For a tool with no output schema, the description fully explains what the agent can expect (listed/clean, severity, removal metadata, unavailable/disabled evidence) and clarifies operational constraints (60 providers, auth/destructive notes). Enough for correct invocation and interpretation.

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?

Schema already documents both parameters (100% coverage). The description adds meaning: domain resolves MX IPv4 addresses, IP is a direct check, and at least one is required. This enriches the schema's basic field definitions.

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 clearly states it's a read-only query against DNSBL/RBL providers, distinguishing it from sibling check tools (e.g., check_spf, check_dmarc). It specifies the resource and action precisely, even noting it is not a delisting service.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

Explicitly states when to use ('mail-server reputation triage') and when not ('not a delisting service'), plus input requirements (domain or IP, at least one required). It doesn't name alternative tools but provides sufficient context for differentiation.

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