get_domainGet one sending domain by id or name, with its DNS records and verification status.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| domain | Yes | Domain id or name (example.com) |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| domain | Yes | ||
| records | Yes | Sending DNS records to add at the DNS provider | |
| analysis | No | DMARC and BIMI findings for the domain | |
| inbound_note | No | ||
| tracking_dns | No | The tracking record, when tracking is on | |
| inbound_records | No | Records for inbound receiving |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Output schema / (root)Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+ "properties": {
+ "analysis": {
+ "additionalProperties": true,
+ "description": "DMARC and BIMI findings for the domain",
+ "type": "object"
+ },
+ "domain": {
+ "properties": {
+ "click_tracking": {
+ "type": "boolean"
+ },
+ "created_at": {
+ "description": "ISO 8601",
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "id": {
+ "description": "Domain id",
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "inbound_enabled": {
+ "type": "boolean"
+ },
+ "inbound_error": {
+ "type": [
+ "string",
+ "null"
+ ]
+ },
+ "inbound_status": {
+ "description": "disabled, pending, active, or error",
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "name": {
+ "description": "Domain name",
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "open_tracking": {
+ "type": "boolean"
+ },
+ "status": {
+ "description": "Verification status",
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "tls_mode": {
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "verified_at": {
+ "description": "ISO 8601",
+ "type": [
+ "string",
+ "null"
+ ]
+ }
+ },
+ "required": [
+ "id",
+ "name"
+ ],
+ "type": "object"
+ },
+ "inbound_note": {
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "inbound_records": {
+ "description": "Records for inbound receiving",
+ "items": {
+ "properties": {
+ "host": {
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "priority": {
+ "description": "MX preference",
+ "type": "number"
+ },
+ "purpose": {
+ "description": "What the record is for, e.g. spf, dkim, dmarc",
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "type": {
+ "description": "Record type: TXT, CNAME, MX…",
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "value": {
+ "type": "string"
+ }
+ },
+ "required": [
+ "type",
+ "host",
+ "value"
+ ],
+ "type": "object"
+ },
+ "type": "array"
+ },
+ "records": {
+ "description": "Sending DNS records to add at the DNS provider",
+ "items": {
+ "properties": {
+ "host": {
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "priority": {
+ "description": "MX preference",
+ "type": "number"
+ },
+ "purpose": {
+ "description": "What the record is for, e.g. spf, dkim, dmarc",
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "type": {
+ "description": "Record type: TXT, CNAME, MX…",
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "value": {
+ "type": "string"
+ }
+ },
+ "required": [
+ "type",
+ "host",
+ "value"
+ ],
+ "type": "object"
+ },
+ "type": "array"
+ },
+ "tracking_dns": {
+ "description": "The tracking record, when tracking is on",
+ "properties": {
+ "host": {
+ "type": [
+ "string",
+ "null"
+ ]
+ },
+ "ok": {
+ "type": [
+ "boolean",
+ "null"
+ ]
+ },
+ "required": {
+ "description": "True when open or click tracking needs its own record",
+ "type": "boolean"
+ },
+ "target": {
+ "type": [
+ "string",
+ "null"
+ ]
+ }
+ },
+ "type": "object"
+ }
+ },
+ "required": [
+ "domain",
+ "records"
+ ],
+ "type": "object"
+}Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds useful context beyond them by disclosing what the call surfaces (DNS records and verification status), which helps an agent judge the tool's richness and cost.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
One front-loaded sentence with zero filler; the lookup key is stated before the returned content. Every clause earns its place.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
With only one parameter, full schema coverage, an output schema, and annotations covering safety, the description carries enough to select and invoke the tool correctly. Only minor operational notes (e.g., behavior when the domain is not found) are absent, which is acceptable here.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, with the single parameter documented as 'Domain id or name (example.com)'. The description's 'by id or name' mirrors the schema without adding format, validation, or lookup-precedence detail, so the baseline 3 applies.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states a specific verb (get), a specific resource (sending domain), and the lookup keys (id or name), and it notes the returned payload (DNS records and verification status). It contrasts implicitly with list_domains by emphasizing singular lookup, though it never names a sibling explicitly.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Usage is only implied: an agent can infer this is for fetching a single domain when the identifier is known. There is no explicit when-to-use vs. list_domains/get_deliverability guidance and no stated prerequisites, but the purpose does not mislead.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.