Skip to main content
Glama

IntoDNS.ai DNS & Email Security Scanner

by ai.intodns

check_dns_propagation

Read-onlyIdempotent

Compare DNS responses across the nine currently configured public and authoritative resolvers to detect propagation lag, missing answers, or inconsistent TTL/data values. Defaults to record type A and region 'all'. Returns every resolver response plus a propagation percentage and explicit inconsistency list. Use when records were just changed and you suspect staleness; for a single DNS-over-HTTPS lookup use lookup_dns instead. Read-only HTTP, no auth, and no destructive actions.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
typeNoDNS record type to checkA
domainYesDomain name only, e.g. example.com (no URL, path, or port)
regionNoResolver regionall

TDQS

A4.9/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

The description adds rich behavioral context beyond annotations: mentions the nine resolvers, defaults, return payload (percentage, inconsistency list), and explicitly states read-only, no auth, no destructive actions. It aligns with annotations and provides extra detail.

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?

The description is three concise sentences, front-loaded with purpose, then usage, then safety. Every sentence adds value and there is no fluff.

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?

The tool is well described: inputs (defaults), behavior (multi-resolver comparison), output (resolver responses, percentage, inconsistency list), and usage context. With full schema coverage and no output schema requirement, this is complete and actionable.

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 description only needs to add value. It does so by noting defaults ('record type A and region all') and giving context on domain (e.g., no URL/path/port), which complements the schema without redundancy.

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 the tool compares DNS responses across multiple resolvers to detect propagation lag, missing answers, or inconsistent data. It uses a specific verb ('Compare') and resource ('DNS responses'), and distinguishes itself from the sibling lookup_dns tool by focusing on multi-resolver checks.

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 states when to use this tool ('records were just changed and you suspect staleness') and names the alternative for single lookups ('use lookup_dns instead'). This is exemplary usage 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