Skip to main content
Glama

IntoDNS.ai DNS & Email Security Scanner

by ai.intodns

get_everything_report

Read-onlyIdempotent

Generate the complete live IntoDNS.ai report covering DNS, email authentication, web/HTTPS, blacklist reputation, sender requirements, and canonical citation URLs in a single call. Read-only, no domain mutation. ~5-15s latency depending on backend cache state. Use when the user asks for everything, the full picture, or a deep current-state summary; use scan_domain for a faster default scan, or create_report_snapshot when the result must remain immutable for audit/ticket use. No auth, no side effects.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
domainYesDomain name only, e.g. example.com (no URL, path, or port)
formatNoReturn JSON data or LLM-ready Markdownjson

TDQS

A4.4/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and idempotentHint=true. The description adds 'No auth, no side effects' and explains latency variation (~5-15s depending on backend cache state), which goes beyond the annotations and clarifies expected execution behavior without contradiction.

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 a single well-structured paragraph that front-loads the main purpose and then provides context on latency, use cases, and nuances. Every sentence adds value, and there is no redundancy or filler.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Despite lacking an output schema, the description enumerates the major report components (DNS, email authentication, web/HTTPS, blacklist, sender requirements) and mentions the JSON vs Markdown output. It covers latency, side effects, and alternatives. It could benefit from explaining whether the report includes raw data vs summaries, but overall it's sufficiently complete.

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?

Both parameters (domain and format) are fully covered by the input schema with descriptions that include examples and constraints. The description repeats the domain requirement ('no URL, path, or port') and mentions output formats, but doesn't add significant extra meaning beyond the schema. Given 100% coverage, baseline 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?

Description explicitly states the tool generates a complete live IntoDNS.ai report covering DNS, email authentication, web/HTTPS, blacklist reputation, sender requirements, and citation URLs. It distinguishes from siblings by naming scan_domain and create_report_snapshot as alternatives, making the purpose unmistakable.

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?

Provides explicit when-to-use guidance ('when the user asks for everything, the full picture, or a deep current-state summary') and contrasts with scan_domain for faster scans and create_report_snapshot for immutable audit use. Also notes read-only, latency, and auth absence.

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