Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In

APIVerve

by com.apiverve
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

DANE Record Validator

DANERecordValidator
Read-only

DANE Record Validator: DANE Record Validator validates DANE/TLSA DNS records used for certificate authentication, providing security analysis and best practice recommendations. (Cost: 2 credits)

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": {
      "record": "<record>"
    },
    "name": "DANERecordValidator"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
recordYesThe DANE/TLSA record string to validate

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
dataNo
errorNoError message, null on success
statusNo"ok" on success

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observed

TDQS

B3.2/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that it provides 'security analysis and best practice recommendations' and states a cost of 2 credits, which is useful context, but it doesn't clarify what that analysis entails or any other behavioral traits.

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 a single sentence that is front-loaded with the tool name and core purpose. It is slightly repetitive ('DANE Record Validator: DANE Record Validator validates...'), but otherwise efficient with no unnecessary content.

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 the tool's low complexity (one parameter), the presence of an output schema, and informative annotations, the description is largely complete. The main gap is the absence of usage guidance relative to sibling tools, but that is not required for basic invocation.

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?

The input schema has 100% description coverage for the single 'record' parameter, including an example. The description adds no additional meaning about the parameter beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

The description states a specific verb ('validates') and resource ('DANE/TLSA DNS records') and adds the context of certificate authentication. It does not explicitly distinguish the tool from similar siblings like TLSChecker or DNSSECChecker, preventing a 5.

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

Usage Guidelines2/5

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

There is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no mention of when not to use it, and no named alternatives among the many sibling validators. Usage is only implied by the tool name and purpose.

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

All APIVerve 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