Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In

IntoDNS.ai DNS & Email Security Scanner

by ai.intodns
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

Check Google/Yahoo sender requirements

check_sender_requirements
Read-onlyIdempotent

Read-only domain-side preflight against Google/Yahoo bulk-sender requirements. Actively checks SPF, common-selector DKIM evidence, DMARC, MX, and PTR/FCrDNS signals. TLS use, one-click unsubscribe, complaint rate, and From-header behavior require a real sent message/provider telemetry and are returned as informational follow-up items, not false passes. Returns per-requirement pass/fail/warning/info plus an explicitly limited readiness summary. Use before a campaign; use analyze_raw_email or create_email_test to verify message-level requirements. Single GET, no auth.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "domain": "<domain>"
    },
    "name": "check_sender_requirements"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
domainYesDomain 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 readOnly/openWorld/idempotent/non-destructive, and the description adds substantial context beyond them: it discloses which requirements are actively checked versus which need a real sent message and are returned as informational, explicitly refusing false passes. 'Single GET, no auth' adds access and cost detail not present in 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.

Conciseness4/5

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

Front-loaded with the core purpose, then the check list, then the limitation and alternative routing. Dense but nearly every clause carries information; 'Returns per-requirement pass/fail/warning/info plus an explicitly limited readiness summary' is doing real work given there is no output schema.

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?

No output schema exists, and the description compensates by describing the return shape (per-requirement pass/fail/warning/info plus a limited readiness summary) and by scoping what the tool cannot verify. An agent has everything needed to call it and interpret results correctly.

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

Parameters3/5

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

Only one parameter and schema description coverage is 100%, with the schema already stating 'Domain name only, e.g. example.com (no URL, path, or port).' The description's 'domain-side' framing is consistent but adds no syntax or format detail beyond the schema, so baseline applies.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: a read-only domain-side preflight against Google/Yahoo bulk-sender requirements, then enumerates exactly which checks it runs (SPF, DKIM, DMARC, MX, PTR/FCrDNS). It also distinguishes itself from message-level siblings by naming analyze_raw_email and create_email_test.

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 before a campaign' and routes message-level verification to analyze_raw_email or create_email_test. It also names the conditions it cannot cover (TLS use, one-click unsubscribe, complaint rate, From-header) so the agent knows when this tool is insufficient.

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
One endpoint for every MCP toolRayrun runs every MCP server behind one URL and holds the credentials. Each call is decided per client, tool, and argument, then recorded.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources