Skip to main content
Glama

IntoDNS.ai DNS & Email Security Scanner

by ai.intodns

lookup_dns

Read-onlyIdempotent

Read-only DNS record lookup via DNS-over-HTTPS. Pass type for a single record type or types for an array; if both omitted, returns A records. Returns parsed answers with TTL, raw rdata, and DNSSEC AD bit. Use for arbitrary record queries; use validate_dnssec for full DNSSEC chain validation, or check_dns_propagation for multi-resolver consensus. No auth, no rate limits beyond upstream resolver.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
typeNoSingle DNS record type
typesNoMultiple DNS record types
domainYesDomain name only, e.g. example.com (no URL, path, or port)

TDQS

A4.9/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

The description adds behavioral context beyond annotations: it explains default behavior when both type and types are omitted (returns A records), what the response includes (TTL, raw rdata, DNSSEC AD bit), and constraints (no auth, rate limits only from upstream resolver). This complements the readOnly, idempotent hints without contradicting them.

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 compact and front-loaded: the first clause states the core purpose, followed by parameter behavior, return type, usage guidance, and constraints. Every sentence provides value without redundancy.

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?

For a simple DNS lookup tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, parameters, return format, and operational constraints. It also places the tool within the sibling context, making it self-sufficient for an agent to select and invoke correctly.

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

Parameters4/5

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

Schema coverage is 100%, but the description adds important parameter semantics: it distinguishes between `type` (single) and `types` (array) and clarifies the default A record behavior. This goes beyond the schema descriptions, which only list the parameters without explaining the relationship or default.

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 does a 'Read-only DNS record lookup via DNS-over-HTTPS,' specifying the verb (lookup), resource (DNS records), and method (DoH). It also distinguishes from siblings by naming validate_dnssec and check_dns_propagation as alternatives for different use cases.

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 when-to-use guidance is provided: 'Use for arbitrary record queries; use validate_dnssec for full DNSSEC chain validation, or check_dns_propagation for multi-resolver consensus.' This clearly states both the intended use and when to choose alternatives, plus notes about auth and rate limits.

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