Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In

APIVerve

by com.apiverve
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

DKIM Validator

DKIMValidator
Read-only

DKIM Validator: DKIM Validator checks the DomainKeys Identified Mail (DKIM) DNS records for a domain to verify that they are present and correctly formatted. (Cost: 10 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": {
      "domain": "<domain>"
    },
    "name": "DKIMValidator"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
domainYesThe domain to validate the DKIM record for
selectorNoThe DKIM selector to look up (the label before ._domainkey). When omitted, a list of common selectors is tried

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?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description's real addition is the credit cost (10 credits) and the note that records are checked for presence and correct formatting. It does not disclose fallback behavior when no selector is supplied or what a failure result looks like, but the output schema covers return values.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence plus a cost note, with nothing extraneous. Minor redundancy in repeating the tool name twice ("DKIM Validator: DKIM Validator checks...") costs it a point.

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 annotations covering safety, an output schema covering results, and a fully documented schema, the description only needs to state purpose and cost, which it does. The one gap is any hint about distinguishing this from the other email-authentication validators.

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%, and the schema already explains both the domain and the selector, including the common-selector fallback when selector is omitted. The description adds no parameter meaning beyond that, 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?

States a specific verb and resource: checks DKIM DNS records for a domain and verifies presence and formatting. The purpose is unambiguous, though it does not explicitly distinguish itself from close siblings like DMARCValidator, SPFValidator, or DANERecordValidator beyond the record type named.

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 when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance and no mention of alternatives among the many DNS/email-auth validator siblings. The agent must infer that this applies only to DKIM and not to DMARC/SPF/DNSSEC checks.

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