Skip to main content
Glama

IntoDNS.ai DNS & Email Security Scanner

by ai.intodns

start_deep_scan

Start a long-running Internet.nl deep scan (typically 30-120s). Returns a scanId immediately; poll get_deep_scan_status until status='finished'. Read-only — no domain mutation. Internet.nl runs an exhaustive standards-compliance audit (IPv6, DNSSEC, modern TLS, RPKI, mail authentication) used by EU governments. Use when scan_domain output is not strict enough for compliance reporting, or when the user asks for an Internet.nl-grade audit. For sub-10s answers, use scan_domain. To abort an in-progress scan, call cancel_deep_scan. No auth.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
nameNoOptional display name
domainYesDomain name only, e.g. example.com (no URL, path, or port)
scanTypeNoDeep scan typeboth

TDQS

A3.7/5.0
Behavior1/5

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

The description claims 'Read-only — no domain mutation' while the annotations set readOnlyHint=false, which is a direct contradiction. The description also does not disclose other behavioral aspects like side effects or long-running nature beyond what the annotation hints suggest.

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 clear and organized but contains some redundancy (e.g., 'Internet.nl' repeated, 'scan_domain' mentioned twice). It remains concise and focused without unnecessary bulk.

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?

Given there is no output schema, the description appropriately explains that a scanId is returned immediately and that polling via get_deep_scan_status is required. It also names cancel_deep_scan for aborts. However, it omits mention of error handling or rate limits, which would improve completeness.

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 descriptions cover all three parameters (domain, scanType, name) with adequate detail. The description does not add extra semantics beyond the schema, so the baseline score of 3 applies.

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 starts a long-running deep scan and distinguishes it from the faster scan_domain tool. It specifies the verb 'start' and the resource 'deep scan', making the purpose 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?

The description explicitly states when to use this tool (when scan_domain output is not strict enough or when an Internet.nl-grade audit is needed) and when to use the alternative (scan_domain for sub-10s answers). It provides clear usage criteria.

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