Skip to main content
Glama

IntoDNS.ai DNS & Email Security Scanner

Check DNS blacklists

check_blacklist
Read-onlyIdempotent

Read-only query against the configured public DNSBL/RBL providers; the response lists which ones answered, which could not be measured and which are 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. A provider error code (e.g. Spamhaus 127.255.255.x when the query is refused), a timeout, or a list that does not answer its RFC 5782 test entry is listed under unavailableProviders: that provider's status is unknown, not clean. Domain-only lists (Spamhaus DBL, NordSpam DBL) and Validity's reputation-score zone (score.senderscore.com, a score rather than a listing) are excluded from IP checks. Use for mail-server reputation triage; it is not a delisting service. No auth or destructive actions.

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "check_blacklist"
  }
}

Input Schema

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

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observed

TDQS

A4.6/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already declare read-only/idempotent/no-destructive, and the description goes well beyond them: it explains that unavailableProviders means status unknown rather than clean, cites Spamhaus 127.255.255.x, timeouts, and RFC 5782 test-entry failures, and lists exclusion rules (DBL zones, SenderScore). This is exactly the added context the annotations cannot convey.

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

Conciseness4/5

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

Dense and front-loaded: capability, then input modes, then return/unavailable semantics, then scope. A single long paragraph, but nearly every sentence carries new information; only the provider-exclusion detail is slightly heavy for the description length.

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 fully carries the return-value burden (listed/clean, severity, removal metadata, unavailable and disabled evidence) and explains the key semantic trap that 'unavailable' is not 'clean'. Nothing an agent needs to call and interpret this correctly is missing.

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 coverage is 100% so the baseline is 3, and the description adds real meaning: domain triggers MX IPv4 resolution rather than a direct domain check, and at least one of the two must be supplied (resolving the ambiguity from required: 0).

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?

Opens with a specific verb+resource: a read-only query against configured public DNSBL/RBL providers, and states what the response lists. Clearly separable from the DNS/email-security siblings, none of which are blacklist lookups.

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?

Gives explicit selection logic between the two input modes (domain -> resolve and inspect MX IPv4s, or an IPv4 ip for a direct check) and names the use case as mail-server reputation triage while excluding delisting. It does not name a sibling alternative, but the exclusions and mode guidance are strong.

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

Try in Browser

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.