Skip to main content
Glama

BlackVeil DNS & Email Security Scanner

check_dnskey_strength

Read-onlyIdempotent

Audit DNSKEY signing algorithms used for DNSSEC: reports the algorithm in use (RSA/SHA-1, RSA/SHA-256, ECDSA P-256, Ed25519, etc.) and flags deprecated ones (RSA/SHA-1, DSA), independent of whether the chain validates. Use when asked which algorithm signs DNSSEC keys or if deprecated DNSKEY algorithms are in use. Part of the scan_domain audit.

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": "check_dnskey_strength"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
domainYesDomain, e.g. example.com
formatNoOutput verbosity.
force_refreshNoBypass the cache.

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
scoreYes
passedYes
partialNo
categoryYes
findingsYes
checkStatusNo
verdictWithheldNo

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed3 schema fields changed
    • changedInput schema / properties / domain / description
      Previous value: -"Domain to check (e.g., example.com)"New value: +"Domain, e.g. example.com"
    • changedInput schema / properties / force_refresh / description
      Previous value: -"Bypass cache and run a fresh check. Useful after DNS changes."New value: +"Bypass the cache."
    • changedInput schema / properties / format / description
      Previous value: -"Output verbosity. Auto-detected if omitted."New value: +"Output verbosity."
  2. Changed1 schema field changed
    • addedInput schema / additionalProperties
      Added value: +false
  3. Changed1 schema field changed
    • addedOutput schema / properties / verdictWithheld
      Added value: +{
      +  "type": "boolean"
      +}
  4. Changed2 schema fields changed
    • addedOutput schema / properties / checkStatus
      Added value: +{
      +  "type": "string"
      +}
    • addedOutput schema / properties / partial
      Added value: +{
      +  "type": "boolean"
      +}
  5. Added

TDQS

A4.1/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, openWorld and non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful behavior beyond that: the result is independent of chain validation, the specific algorithms flagged as deprecated (RSA/SHA-1, DSA), and its membership in the scan_domain audit. It does not discuss caching behavior despite force_refresh being offered, which is the main remaining gap.

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 purpose and scope statement is front-loaded, and the routing sentence comes last where it belongs. Some parenthetical algorithm lists add length but are informative rather than wasteful; nothing is redundant with the title or schema.

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, return values need not be described, and annotations cover safety and idempotency. Purpose, scope relative to chain validation, and caller intent are all covered; only cache/refresh behavior and explicit sibling exclusions are missing, which are minor for a read-only audit check.

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 every parameter, including the format enum and force_refresh, is documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond that, 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?

The description names a specific verb and resource ('Audit DNSKEY signing algorithms used for DNSSEC') and lists exactly what it returns (algorithm in use, deprecated flags). The clause 'independent of whether the chain validates' cleanly separates it from the sibling checks check_dnssec and check_dnssec_chain without needing their schemas.

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?

It gives an explicit trigger ('Use when asked which algorithm signs DNSSEC keys or if deprecated DNSKEY algorithms are in use') and notes it is part of the scan_domain audit, which routes the agent for umbrella scans. It does not explicitly state when to prefer check_dnssec or check_dnssec_chain instead, so routing against those siblings is left partly to inference.

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

Try in Browser

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.