Skip to main content
Glama

IntoDNS.ai DNS & Email Security Scanner

by ai.intodns

flatten_spf

Read-onlyIdempotent

Read-only SPF flattening for a domain. Resolves the full include/a/mx/redirect graph to literal ip4/ip6 addresses and returns a single flattened SPF record that fits under the RFC-7208 10-lookup limit, plus lookup counts before/after, IP count, record length, whether it must be split across multiple records, and a maintenance warning. Use when a domain hits 'too many DNS lookups' (PermError) and removing unused includes is not enough; run check_spf first to see the lookup graph and whether flattening is actually needed. Flattened records are high-maintenance — they break when a provider rotates IPs — so treat the output as a last resort to re-verify periodically. No auth, no side effects.

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?

Beyond the annotations (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive), the description adds 'No auth, no side effects' and cautions about high maintenance and provider IP rotation. These traits are not in the annotations and add valuable context.

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 somewhat lengthy but packs essential details: purpose, usage, return content, and caveats. It is well-structured with a logical flow, though it could be slightly more concise without losing nuance.

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 description covers the operation's purpose, output details (lookup counts, IP count, record length, split flag, maintenance warning), and practical advice. It is complete given the lack of an output schema.

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?

The schema already fully describes the sole parameter 'domain' with a clear description. The tool description adds no additional meaning about the parameter, so it stays at the baseline for full schema coverage.

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's function: it flattens SPF records by resolving the full include/a/mx/redirect graph to literal IP addresses, returning a single SPF record within limits. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like check_spf or generate_spf.

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?

Explicit usage guidance is provided: 'Use when a domain hits too many DNS lookups (PermError) and removing unused includes is not enough' and references running check_spf first. This clarifies when to choose this tool over alternatives.

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