Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In

APIVerve

by com.apiverve
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

DNSSEC Checker

DNSSECChecker
Read-only

DNSSEC Checker: DNSSEC Checker validates the DNSSEC (Domain Name System Security Extensions) configuration of a domain. It verifies that DNS responses are authenticated and haven't been tampered with. (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": "DNSSECChecker"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
domainYesThe domain name to check DNSSEC configuration for

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

C2.8/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, so safety is covered. The description adds a genuine piece of behavior beyond the structured data: a cost of 10 credits. It does not explain failure modes (unsigned domains, missing DS records) or latency, and it needn't explain return values since an output schema exists.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness3/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Short and readable, but the opening 'DNSSEC Checker: DNSSEC Checker validates...' duplicates the name/title and wastes the highest-salience position. The parenthetical credit cost is the one piece of non-obvious information and is relegated to the end.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness3/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a single-parameter read-only tool with an output schema and full annotation coverage, the description is adequate but thin. It omits the one thing an agent would most benefit from: how this differs from sibling DNS tools and when a DNSSEC check is warranted instead of a plain DNS lookup.

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?

Only one parameter, and the schema already documents it at 100% coverage with an example ('cloudflare.com'). The description adds no extra meaning about format, IDN/punycode handling, or subdomain behavior, so baseline 3 applies.

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

Purpose3/5

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

The description names a specific verb (validates) and resource (DNSSEC configuration of a domain) and clarifies the underlying check ('DNS responses are authenticated and haven't been tampered with'). However, the opening clause 'DNSSEC Checker: DNSSEC Checker validates...' largely restates the name and title, and it never distinguishes this from the many adjacent DNS/security siblings such as DNSLookup, DNSPropagationChecker, SPFValidator, or TLSChecker.

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 prerequisites (e.g. domain must exist, reachable resolver), and no mention of alternatives. An agent must infer that this is the right tool only from the word 'DNSSEC'.

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