Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In

BlackVeil DNS & Email Security Scanner

by com.blackveilsecurity
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

validate_fix

Read-onlyIdempotent

Re-check a specific security control after applying a fix, to confirm the finding is now resolved. Use only when a fix has already been applied and you want to verify or confirm the remediation was successful — not for initial inspection of a record.

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>",
      "check": "<check>"
    },
    "name": "validate_fix"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
checkYesCheck name to re-run (e.g., "dmarc", "spf")
domainYesDomain to validate the fix for
formatNoOutput verbosity.
expectedNoExpected DNS record value to verify against

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed1 schema field changed
    • changedInput schema / properties / format / description
      Previous value: -"Output verbosity. Auto-detected if omitted."New value: +"Output verbosity."
  2. Changed1 schema field changed
    • addedInput schema / additionalProperties
      Added value: +false
  3. First observed

TDQS

A4.1/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, non-destructive and open-world, so the safety profile is covered by structured data. The description adds the useful semantic point that this is a post-remediation confirmation pass rather than a fresh scan. It says nothing about what a failed re-check looks like, whether results are cached, or any rate/permission constraints, so it adds only modest value beyond the annotations.

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 tight sentences, front-loaded with the action and the goal, followed by the usage constraint. Every clause carries information; there is no filler or repetition.

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 a low-complexity read-only check with rich annotations and fully documented parameters, the description supplies enough to call it correctly. The one gap is that no output schema exists and the description never says what a re-check returns (resolved vs. still failing, or how 'expected' factors into the verdict).

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% with two enums fully documented, so the baseline is 3. The description contributes no detail about the 'expected' value comparison, the 'format' verbosity choice, or any interaction between 'check' and 'domain' beyond what the schema already states.

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?

States a specific verb and object ('Re-check a specific security control after applying a fix') and the goal ('confirm the finding is now resolved'). It also explicitly separates itself from the initial-inspection tools, so an agent can tell it apart from the check_* siblings without opening their schemas.

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

Usage Guidelines5/5

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

Gives both sides of the routing decision: use it 'only when a fix has already been applied' and 'not for initial inspection of a record'. That is an explicit precondition plus an explicit exclusion, with nothing left to inference.

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 toolsInspect
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.

Resources