Skip to main content
Glama

IntoDNS.ai DNS & Email Security Scanner

by ai.intodns

nis2_quickscan

Read-onlyIdempotent

Compute a NIS2 Article 21.2 readiness score for a domain by mapping the IntoDNS quickscan onto the ten NIS2 measures. Returns a 0-100 weighted total, per-measure status (Article 21.2 a-j), evidence rows, critical gaps, and concrete fix suggestions. The score reflects only the DNS and email layer of NIS2 — full NIS2 compliance also requires audit of web applications, supply chain, organisational processes, and training. Use when the user asks about NIS2 compliance, NIS2 readiness, NIS2 Article 21.2, cyber-hygiene compliance, or related EU-NIS regulation checks for a domain.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
langNoLanguage for the standard caveat text shown alongside the score.en
domainYesDomain name only, e.g. example.com (no URL, path, or port)

TDQS

A4.5/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, covering safety and idempotency. The description adds meaningful context about the scope (DNS/email only) and that it maps 'IntoDNS quickscan' to NIS2 measures, which clarifies what the tool actually does beyond the annotations. It does not repeat annotations and does not contradict them. A slight deduction for not explicitly stating it makes network calls, but the readOnly hint implies that.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose, then lists outputs, scope limitation, and usage triggers. Every sentence adds value and there is no filler. It is structured logically and efficiently for its complexity.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description must explain return values, and it does (0-100 score, per-measure status, evidence rows, gaps, fixes). It also provides crucial scope context (DNS/email only) and usage guidance. Annotations cover safety. For a composite analysis tool, this is complete and sufficient.

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 description coverage is 100%: both parameters (domain and lang) are fully described in the schema. The description does not add significant parameter information beyond the schema. It mentions the score is for a domain, but the schema already specifies 'Domain name only'. Since the schema handles the burden, 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?

The description clearly states the tool computes a NIS2 Article 21.2 readiness score for a domain, using a specific verb ('Compute') and resource ('domain'). It lists the outputs (0-100 score, per-measure status, evidence, gaps, fixes) and distinguishes itself from sibling tools by focusing on NIS2 compliance. This is a specific, non-vague purpose.

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 provides when to use: 'Use when the user asks about NIS2 compliance...' and also notes the limitation that it only covers DNS/email layer, implying it should not be used for full NIS2 compliance assessments. This gives clear context and an exclusion criterion, which exceeds the baseline.

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