Skip to main content
Glama

dns

by com.blackveilsecurity

generate

Read-onlyIdempotent

Generate a DNS/email security remediation artifact. Artifact types: spf_record (build a new SPF record), dmarc_record (create a DMARC policy), dkim_config (DKIM key setup), mta_sts_policy (generate an MTA-STS policy file), fix_plan (prioritized remediation plan for all findings), or rollout_plan (phased DMARC enforcement timeline). Use when asked to generate or create a record or policy.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
domainYesDomain (e.g., example.com)
formatNoOutput verbosity. Auto-detected if omitted.
policyNodmarc_record: policy (default "reject").
artifactYesWhich artifact to generate (e.g., "dmarc_record", "fix_plan").
mx_hostsNomta_sts_policy: MX hosts. Omit to detect from DNS.
providerNodkim_config: provider (e.g., "google"). Omit for generic.
timelineNorollout_plan: rollout speed (default: standard).
rua_emailNodmarc_record: report email. Default: dmarc-reports@{domain}.
force_refreshNofix_plan: bypass cache and run a fresh scan.
target_policyNorollout_plan: target DMARC policy (default: reject).
include_providersNospf_record: providers to include (e.g., ["google"]).

TDQS

A3.9/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, which signal a safe, non-mutating operation. The description adds artifact-type context but doesn't disclose additional behavioral traits (e.g., output format, side effects). It is consistent with annotations, so no contradiction.

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 description is a single front-loaded sentence that introduces the tool's purpose, lists artifact types, and gives a usage note. The list adds length but is necessary for clarity; no wasted words.

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?

For an 11-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers the main purpose, artifact types, and usage context. The schema handles parameter details, and annotations cover safety. It doesn't explain return format, but the tool's function is straightforward enough that this is a minor gap.

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 coverage is 100%, and the schema already describes every parameter, including enums and defaults. The description repeats the artifact enum in prose but adds no meaningful extra semantics 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 generates DNS/email security remediation artifacts and enumerates all six artifact types (spf_record, dmarc_record, etc.). It distinguishes itself from sibling check/analyze tools by being the generation tool.

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?

Explicitly says 'Use when asked to generate or create a record or policy.' This provides a clear usage trigger. It does not mention alternatives or exclusions, but given the sibling tool names (all check_*/analyze_*), the context is still clear.

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