Audit TXT records for stale entries and SaaS exposure.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| 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. |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| score | Yes | ||
| passed | Yes | ||
| partial | No | ||
| category | Yes | ||
| findings | Yes | ||
| checkStatus | No | ||
| verdictWithheld | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Input schema / additionalPropertiesAdded value: +falseOutput schema / properties / verdictWithheldAdded value: +{
+ "type": "boolean"
+}Output schema / properties / checkStatusAdded value: +{
+ "type": "string"
+}Output schema / properties / partialAdded value: +{
+ "type": "boolean"
+}Input schema / properties / force_refreshAdded value: +{
+ "description": "Bypass cache and run a fresh check. Useful after DNS changes.",
+ "type": "boolean"
+}Output 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"
+}Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint, so safety is covered. The description adds genuine analytical context by naming the two detection classes (stale entries, SaaS exposure), but says nothing about cache behavior despite force_refresh existing, nor about output shape.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
A single front-loaded sentence with zero filler, though it is arguably too terse for a tool with three parameters and two distinct detection modes.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and annotations carry the safety profile. Still, the description leaves 'stale' and 'SaaS exposure' undefined and gives no invocation context, which is thin for a tool whose main value is interpretation of findings.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100% with all three parameters documented, including the force_refresh cache-bypass rationale and the format enum. The description adds nothing beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 applies.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
States a specific verb (audit) and resource (TXT records) plus the two things it looks for: stale entries and SaaS exposure. That distinguishes it reasonably from sibling record checks like check_spf or check_dmarc, though it never names a sibling explicitly.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
There is no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no pointer to alternatives such as check_spf or check_zone_hygiene. The agent must infer from the one-line purpose when this audit is appropriate.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.