Skip to main content
Glama

dns

by com.blackveilsecurity

check_tlsrpt

Read-onlyIdempotent

Check whether a domain has SMTP TLS Reporting (TLS-RPT) configured. Queries _smtp._tls. for the v=TLSRPTv1 record and validates its reporting destination (rua= mailto:/https:), flagging a missing record, duplicate records, or an invalid/absent reporting URI. Complements MTA-STS by giving visibility into TLS delivery failures. Part of the scan_domain audit.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
domainYesDomain to check (e.g., example.com)
formatNoOutput verbosity. Auto-detected if omitted.
force_refreshNoBypass cache and run a fresh check. Useful after DNS changes.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
scoreYes
passedYes
partialNo
categoryYes
findingsYes
checkStatusNo

TDQS

A4.7/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, etc.), the description details the DNS query, validation of the reporting destination, and flagging of missing records, duplicates, or invalid URIs. This adds substantial behavioral context.

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

Conciseness5/5

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

The description is concise (3-4 sentences) and front-loaded with the core purpose. Every sentence contributes useful information without redundancy or fluff.

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

Completeness5/5

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

Given the tool's complexity (3 parameters, output schema, clear annotations), the description fully covers the tool's behavior, relationship to other checks, and expected outcomes. No gaps remain for an agent to understand invocation.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining the DNS query pattern (_smtp._tls.<domain>) and the validation of rua= mailto:/https:, which gives semantic meaning to the domain parameter beyond what the schema provides.

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 clearly states the tool checks for SMTP TLS Reporting (TLS-RPT) configuration by querying _smtp._tls.<domain> and validating the record. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like check_mta_sts by explicitly noting it complements MTA-STS and is part of the scan_domain audit.

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?

The description provides context by stating the tool complements MTA-STS and is part of a domain audit, which helps an agent understand when to use it. However, it does not explicitly exclude alternative tools or provide direct guidance on when not to use it.

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

All dns toolsInspect
Try in Browser
RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

A3.6/5.0
Disambiguation4/5

Most tools have clearly distinct purposes, with detailed descriptions that help differentiate overlapping areas (e.g., check_dane vs check_dane_https). However, there are sets of similar tools (brand audit, OSINT, polling) that could cause confusion if descriptions are not carefully read.

Naming Consistency3/5

The naming is mostly readable but inconsistent: many check_* tools follow a verb_noun pattern, but there are also noun_verb names (scan_domain, cymru_asn), bare verbs (generate), and varied patterns for async operations (discover_brand_domains_start vs discover_brand_domains).

Tool Count2/5

With 80 tools, the server feels overstuffed. It covers multiple domains (DNS, email, brand, OSINT, M365) that could benefit from separation. The high number includes many polling/status tools that add overhead.

Completeness3/5

The server covers core DNS and email security checks thoroughly, including many edge cases (e.g., BIMI, MTA-STS, subdomain takeover). However, there are gaps like lack of direct DNS record management and some OSINT tools are restricted to operator deployment, leaving agents with dead ends.

Resources