BlackVeil DNS & Email Security Scanner

sge_quickscan

Read-onlyIdempotent

Check whether ONE domain meets the New Zealand Secure Government Email (SGE) requirements due October 2026. Reports seven controls (DMARC p=reject, SPF -all, DKIM, SMTP transport TLS, MTA-STS enforce, TLS-RPT, sub-domain coverage) as satisfied, not satisfied or NOT MEASURED, with evidence. A DNS-only result tops out at INDETERMINATE, which is not a pass. Not map_compliance (NIST/PCI/SOC 2/CIS).

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": "sge_quickscan"
  }
}

Input Schema

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

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
```
AddedSep 13, 2026

TDQS

A4.5/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already cover safety (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, openWorld), and the description still adds substantial context: the exact control set measured, the tri-state outcome labels including NOT MEASURED, attachment of evidence, and the critical ceiling that DNS-only evidence cannot yield a pass. That last point materially changes how an agent should interpret and report results.

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?

Three dense sentences, each doing distinct work: what is checked, how results are labelled, and how to interpret the ceiling plus the sibling exclusion. Front-loaded with the object of the check and free of filler.

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?

No output schema exists, and the description compensates by naming the seven controls, the three status values, and the presence of evidence, so an agent knows what comes back. Combined with the annotations and a 100%-covered schema, nothing needed to call or interpret the tool is missing.

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 domain, format and force_refresh are already fully documented; the baseline of 3 applies. The description reinforces the single-domain constraint on the required parameter but adds no syntax, format or caching detail beyond the schema.

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?

Names a specific verb and scope ("Check whether ONE domain meets the NZ SGE requirements") and enumerates the exact seven controls assessed, plus the three possible result states. It explicitly differentiates itself from map_compliance, so an agent can route without opening a schema.

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?

Strong scoping ("ONE domain", capitalised) and an explicit exclusion of map_compliance with the standards it covers, which routes the agent away from the compliance-mapping tool. It also warns that a DNS-only outcome tops out at INDETERMINATE and "is not a pass", which is actionable interpretation guidance. It stops short of stating when to prefer this composite scan over the granular single-check siblings.

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.