Skip to main content
Glama

IntoDNS.ai DNS & Email Security Scanner

by ai.intodns

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.

Input Schema

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

TDQS

A4.6/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Adds behavioral details beyond annotations: single GET, no auth, returns informational follow-up items rather than false passes, and describes output structure (pass/fail/warning/info + readiness summary). No contradiction with readOnly/idempotent/destructive hints.

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?

The description is slightly verbose but each sentence contributes meaning, is front-loaded with the core purpose, and flows logically. Could be tightened but remains effective.

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 adequately explains return format and scope. It covers limitations (messaging-level checks) and provides a complete picture for a simple domain-only preflight tool, considering the rich annotations and straightforward parameter.

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?

Schema coverage is 100% for the single domain parameter, and the description adds no extra parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema fully documents the parameter.

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 domain-side preflight against Google/Yahoo bulk-sender requirements, enumerating checks (SPF, DKIM, DMARC, MX, PTR/FCrDNS) and explicitly distinguishing from message-level tools like 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 notes which requirements are not covered (TLS, unsubscribe, etc.) plus directs to alternatives for message-level verification, providing clear when/when-not 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