Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In

AgentBIT

by app.agentbit
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

DNS Inspector

agentbit.dns_inspect
Read-onlyIdempotent

Complete DNS inspection in one call over DNS-over-HTTPS: A, AAAA, MX, TXT, NS, CNAME, SOA and CAA records with TTLs — plus a derived email posture analysis (SPF present and policy, DMARC present and policy, MX count, overall assessment) that raw lookup tools don't do. Pay-per-call via x402 (USDC, Base).

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": "<domain>"
    },
    "name": "agentbit.dns_inspect"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
typesNoRecord types to query (default: all eight)
domainYesHostname to inspect, e.g. example.com
_paymentNoOptional base64 x402 PAYMENT-SIGNATURE payload. Omit to receive payment requirements.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Added

TDQS

A3.7/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already cover read-only, idempotent, non-destructive and open-world behavior. The description adds genuinely new context: the pay-per-call x402/USDC-on-Base model and the derived email posture outputs, which materially change how an agent plans a call. It does not address pagination or latency, keeping it short of a 5.

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?

Front-loaded with the core capability and the record list, then a short payment sentence. Dense but every clause carries information; the record enumeration is slightly list-heavy but justified by the enum coverage claim.

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?

With no output schema, the description carries the return-value burden and does so: DNS records with TTLs plus a derived email posture block (SPF, DMARC, MX count, assessment). The payment flow is also explained. Minor gaps remain around error/empty-result behavior.

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%, so the schema already documents domain, types (with its enum) and _payment. The description echoes the eight-type set and adds the 'default: all eight' semantics, but adds little the schema does not. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb and resource (DNS inspection) and enumerates exactly what is covered: A, AAAA, MX, TXT, NS, CNAME, SOA, CAA with TTLs. It differentiates from a category ('raw lookup tools') rather than from named siblings, so an agent must still infer the boundary against domain_intel or email_deliverability.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines3/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Usage is only implied via 'Complete DNS inspection in one call' and the note that raw lookup tools don't do the email posture analysis. No explicit when-to-use condition or named alternative (e.g. email_deliverability, domain_intel) is given, and no exclusions are stated.

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

All AgentBIT 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