Perform WHOIS + DNS + SPF/DMARC lookup for a domain.
Args:
domain: Domain name to look up (e.g. "example.com").
include_dns: Include DNS records (A, MX, NS, TXT, etc.).
include_security: Include SPF/DMARC email-security check.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| domain | Yes | ||
| include_dns | No | ||
| include_security | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, and the description does not mention side effects, permissions, rate limits, or the read-only nature of the operation. Since the description carries the full burden without annotation support, the lack of behavioral disclosure limits transparency.
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?
The description is concise, uses a structured list for parameters, and includes example values in parentheses. It conveys essential information without extra fluff.
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?
There is no output schema, and the description does not specify the return format, possible error conditions, or additional context about the data returned. While sufficient for a basic understanding, it lacks completeness for agents needing to parse results reliably.
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?
All three parameters (domain, include_dns, include_security) are described with explanatory text, including what each flag controls. This fully covers the schema and adds meaningful semantics.
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 clearly states a specific verb 'Perform' and a specific resource 'WHOIS + DNS + SPF/DMARC lookup for a domain', which distinguishes it from sibling tools like lookup_business or lookup_financials.
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?
It describes each parameter including optional flags (include_dns, include_security) and their purpose, but it does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over alternatives like lookup_business. The domain focus implicitly guides selection, but explicit guidance would be clearer.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.