BlackVeil DNS & Email Security Scanner

check_ptr

Read-onlyIdempotent

Verify forward-confirmed reverse DNS (PTR/FCrDNS) for mail servers. 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_ptr"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`domain`	Yes	Domain, e.g. example.com
`format`	No	Output verbosity.
`force_refresh`	No	Bypass the cache.

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.

Changed3 schema fields changedNov 12, 2026

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."

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"
+}
```
AddedJul 2, 2026

TDQS

A3.5/5.0

Behavior3/5

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 only that this is a network DNS verification tied to the scan_domain audit. It says nothing about cache behavior despite force_refresh implying a cache, nor about what a failed or partial FCrDNS result means.

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?

Two short sentences with no filler, and the core action is front-loaded before the audit-relationship note. It is efficient, though the terseness leaves little room for the contextual detail an agent might want.

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 rich annotations, a fully described schema, and an output schema, the description only needs to establish purpose and role — which it does. An agent can tell this is a read-only DNS verification belonging to the broader domain audit without further detail.

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%, so all three parameters are documented in the schema itself, and an output schema exists. The description adds no meaning beyond that, which is acceptable but not additive — the baseline of 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: verify forward-confirmed reverse DNS (PTR/FCrDNS) for mail servers. That is clearly distinct from sibling checks like check_mx or check_spf. It stops short of explicitly contrasting with the nearest alternatives, but the action is unambiguous.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

The phrase 'for mail servers' and 'Part of the scan_domain audit' implies the usage context (mail-deliverability auditing, or running inside the aggregate scan). There is no explicit statement of when to call this standalone versus relying on scan_domain, and no when-not guidance.

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.