Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In

Tulina

by ai.tulina.mcp
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

mailpool_domain_fix

Edit a Mailpool domain's DNS records — preview first, then apply.

dry_run=True (the default) reads the current records and returns the exact diff (added, removed) without writing anything. Re-call with dry_run=False to apply. Nothing is sent when there is no difference.

Changes, combinable:

  • spf_hard_fail=True — end the apex SPF record in -all instead of ~all. Only once every service sending as this domain is listed.

  • dmarc_report_email — where DMARC reports go. The record is also normalised: fo, rf, ri are dropped, policy and alignment kept. Mailpool always publishes the address as rua AND ruf. ⚠️ A domain without _dmarc gets one with p=quarantine; sp=quarantine; pct=100.

  • tracking_host + tracking_target — a custom tracking domain, e.g. track → custom.lemlist.com (the target comes from the sending tool). Replaces any CNAME already on that host.

  • add_records — NEW records next to the existing ones, e.g. a verification TXT a sending tool asks for. Never a second SPF: to change SPF, use spf_hard_fail or remove the old record and add the new one in the same call.

  • remove_records — records to delete, matched exactly.

Safety: a change that would add an audit error (second SPF or _dmarc, MX, SPF or DKIM gone, CNAME next to other records) is refused, preview included. A DNS write replaces the WHOLE record set, so the full set is always sent, read back, and the previous set restored if a record went missing. Public DNS follows within ~5 minutes. After dry_run=False, an error whose reason is dns_outcome_unknown, dns_not_kept or partially_applied means records may have changed: re-read them with mailpool_domains(op="dns") before calling again.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "domain_id": "<domain_id>"
    },
    "name": "mailpool_domain_fix"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
_orgNoOrg (id) de CET APPEL. `oto_list_orgs()`.
_groupNoÉquipe (id) de CET APPEL, sous son org parente.
_run_idNoOBLIGATOIRE à chaque appel dès `run_start` ou `data_claim_next` : sans lui, l'écriture sur une ligne réservée est refusée. Hérité seulement si le serveur tient un run actif — n'y compte pas.
dry_runNopreview only (default True).
_projectNoProjet (id) de CET APPEL — jeton PRIMAIRE. `oto_project(op='list')`.
_instanceNoInstance de connecteur PRÉCISE (un credential exact). `oto_instance(op='list')`.
domain_idYesMailpool domain id.
add_recordsNorecords to add next to the existing ones.
spf_hard_failNoswitch SPF to `-all`.
tracking_hostNotracking subdomain label (e.g. `track`).
remove_recordsNorecords to delete (exact match).
tracking_targetNoits CNAME target, given by the sending tool.
dmarc_report_emailNoDMARC report address.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

No schema history has been recorded yet.

TDQS

A4.8/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full burden and does: it discloses that refused changes include the preview, that a DNS write replaces the WHOLE record set, that the full set is read back and restored if a record goes missing, that propagation is ~5 minutes, and it names the three error reasons meaning records may already have changed. This is precisely the mutation-risk information an agent needs before calling.

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?

Front-loads the purpose and the dry-run contract, then uses a bulleted change list and a labeled Safety paragraph. Given 13 parameters and irreversible DNS writes, every block carries load — the warnings and error-code list are not padding.

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?

For a destructive, unannotated tool with no output schema, coverage is strong: diff shape (added/removed), safety refusals, rollback behavior, propagation, and recovery instructions are all present. The only gap is how to obtain a valid domain_id (presumably mailpool_domains), which the description alludes to but never states as the discovery path.

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%, so baseline is 3, and the description adds real meaning on top: dmarc_report_email normalisation (fo/rf/ri dropped, address published as both rua and ruf, _dmarc auto-created with p=quarantine; sp=quarantine; pct=100), tracking_host/tracking_target pairing with a concrete example, and exact-match semantics for remove_records. It leaves the session/routing params (_org, _group, _project, _instance, _run_id) undiscussed, though those are documented in the schema.

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?

Opens with a specific verb+resource+workflow: "Edit a Mailpool domain's DNS records — preview first, then apply." That immediately distinguishes it from mailpool_domains, which is only the read side (referenced later as the re-read path).

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 states the two-phase protocol (dry_run=True by default, then re-call with dry_run=False), gives exclusion guidance ("Never a second SPF: to change SPF, use spf_hard_fail or remove the old record and add the new one in the same call"), and tells the agent exactly what to do after an uncertain outcome (re-read with mailpool_domains(op="dns") before calling again). Preconditions for spf_hard_fail are also stated: only once every sending service is listed.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

All Tulina toolsInspect
Try in Browser
One endpoint for every MCP toolRayrun runs every MCP server behind one URL and holds the credentials. Each call is decided per client, tool, and argument, then recorded.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources