Skip to main content
Glama

IntoDNS.ai DNS & Email Security Scanner

by ai.intodns

get_deep_scan_status

Read-onlyIdempotent

Read-only status poll for a long-running Internet.nl deep scan. Returns scan progress (pending/running/finished), category scores, per-test results, and any failures. Requires a scanId returned by start_deep_scan; poll every 10-30s until status='finished'. Use after start_deep_scan; for fast single-vantage scans, prefer scan_domain. No auth, no side effects.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
scanIdYesDeep scan ID returned by start_deep_scan

TDQS

A4.5/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already establish read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds context on side effects ('No auth, no side effects') and the nature of polling, but these are minor additions beyond the annotation set, justifying a slightly above baseline score.

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?

Two sentences with clear structure: purpose, return values, usage requirement, and alternatives. No redundant wording or filler; every sentence adds value.

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 return values (progress, scores, results, failures), usage context (after start_deep_scan, polling frequency), and alternative options. It is complete for the tool's purpose, even without 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 single parameter scanId is fully described in the schema ('Deep scan ID returned by start_deep_scan'). The description repeats that information without adding new meaning. With 100% schema coverage, baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 is a read-only status poll for a deep scan, returning progress and results. It distinguishes from sibling tools like scan_domain (fast single-vantage) and start_deep_scan (initiation), making its purpose specific and unambiguous.

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 instructs to use after start_deep_scan and advises preferring scan_domain for fast single-vantage scans. Also provides polling interval guidance (10-30s until status='finished'), giving clear when-to-use and alternative contexts.

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