BlackVeil DNS & Email Security Scanner

check_bimi

Read-onlyIdempotent

Check the BIMI brand-logo record at default._bimi.. Validates the logo URL (l=) and the presence of mark-certificate authority evidence (a=) — the a= tag is a bare URL, so the certificate type (VMC or CMC) is not determined — and verifies the DMARC enforcement prerequisite (p=quarantine/reject) that mail clients require before displaying a BIMI logo. Returns findings for a missing/malformed record or unmet prerequisites. Use to assess brand-indicator readiness in inboxes. Part of the scan_domain audit.

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`domain`	Yes	Domain to check (e.g., example.com)
`format`	No	Output verbosity. Auto-detected if omitted.
`force_refresh`	No	Bypass cache and run a fresh check. Useful after DNS changes.

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`score`	Yes
`passed`	Yes
`partial`	No
`category`	Yes
`findings`	Yes
`checkStatus`	No
`verdictWithheld`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed1 schema field changedOct 25, 2026
- addedInput schema / additionalProperties
```
Added value: +false
```
Changed1 schema field changedOct 5, 2026
- addedOutput schema / properties / verdictWithheld
```
Added value: +{
+  "type": "boolean"
+}
```
Changed2 schema fields changedAug 18, 2026
- addedOutput schema / properties / checkStatus
```
Added value: +{
+  "type": "string"
+}
```
- addedOutput schema / properties / partial
```
Added value: +{
+  "type": "boolean"
+}
```

Changed1 schema field changedJul 2, 2026

addedInput schema / properties / force_refresh

Added value: +{
+  "description": "Bypass cache and run a fresh check. Useful after DNS changes.",
+  "type": "boolean"
+}

Changed1 schema field changedMay 26, 2026

changedOutput schema / (root)

Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+  "additionalProperties": {},
+  "properties": {
+    "category": {
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "findings": {
+      "items": {
+        "additionalProperties": {},
+        "properties": {},
+        "type": "object"
+      },
+      "type": "array"
+    },
+    "passed": {
+      "type": "boolean"
+    },
+    "score": {
+      "type": "number"
+    }
+  },
+  "required": [
+    "category",
+    "score",
+    "passed",
+    "findings"
+  ],
+  "type": "object"
+}

First observedApr 21, 2026

TDQS

A4.1/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false), so the description earns credit for the extra disclosures it does make: the a= tag is a bare URL so VMC vs CMC cannot be determined, and the DMARC p=quarantine/reject precondition that mail clients enforce. It does not discuss caching behavior or the force_refresh default, which remains with the schema.

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 scope and the specific checks are front-loaded in the first sentence, followed by the important caveat about a= and the DMARC prerequisite. Every sentence carries information, though the density makes it slightly heavy for a single-check tool.

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 an output schema present, the description need not describe return values, and it correctly characterizes outputs qualitatively (findings for missing/malformed records or unmet prerequisites). Given annotations and full schema coverage, the only remaining gap is cache/refresh semantics, which the schema already handles.

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 all three parameters are documented there, including the format enum and the force_refresh cache-bypass note. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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

Purpose5/5

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

Names a specific verb and resource (check the BIMI record at default._bimi.<domain>) and enumerates exactly the three things validated: the l= logo URL, the a= evidence tag, and the DMARC enforcement prerequisite. An agent can distinguish it from check_dmarc, check_dkim and check_spf without opening any schema.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

'Use to assess brand-indicator readiness in inboxes. Part of the scan_domain audit' gives clear context and a routing relationship to scan_domain. It stops short of explicit exclusions (e.g., when to prefer check_dmarc for the underlying enforcement check), so it is not a full when/when-not rubric.

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

All BlackVeil DNS & Email Security Scanner tools Inspect

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.