Skip to main content
Glama

mcp

by com.domainposture

dossier_dkim

Core dossier check: Probe a domain's DKIM public keys by querying ._domainkey. for each selector. Use to verify signing configuration or discover active selectors; supply selectors when you know the ESP's selector, or omit to probe six common selectors (default, google, k1, selector1, selector2, mxvault). Issues parallel Cloudflare DoH (1.1.1.1) TXT queries per selector, 5 s timeout each. Returns a CheckResult: {status:"ok", found:[{selector, publicKey, raw},...], notFound:[...]} or {status:"error", reason}.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
domainYesPublic FQDN, e.g. example.com. Must be resolvable on the public internet; IPs, ports, paths, and protocol prefixes are rejected.
selectorsNoDKIM selector names to probe, e.g. ["google", "s1"]. Omit to probe the built-in common-selectors set: default, google, k1, selector1, selector2, mxvault.

TDQS

A4.4/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Since no annotations are provided, the description fully bears the burden. It details the DNS query format (selector._domainkey.domain), parallel queries via Cloudflare DoH, timeout (5s), and the return structure. It lacks explicit statement of read-only nature or rate limits, but overall transparent.

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 dense paragraph that efficiently covers purpose, usage, behavior, and return format. Front-loads the core action. Minor improvement could be achieved with bullet points, but no redundancy.

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 no output schema, the description fully explains the return type (CheckResult) with fields and possible statuses. All parameters are addressed. No missing details for this single-purpose tool.

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 coverage is 100%, but the description adds significant value: explains the default selector set, domain validation rules (rejecting IPs/ports), and the format of selector strings. This goes beyond the basic parameter descriptions in 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?

The description uses a specific verb ('Probe') and resource ('DKIM public keys'), clearly distinguishing this from sibling tools like dossier_spf or dossier_dmarc. It explicitly states the core function of querying DKIM records via DNS.

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?

Provides clear context for use: 'verify signing configuration or discover active selectors'. Advises when to supply selectors versus relying on defaults. However, it does not explicitly mention when NOT to use this tool (e.g., for internal domains) or direct users to alternatives among siblings.

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

All mcp 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

A4.4/5.0
Disambiguation5/5

Each dossier_* tool targets a distinct aspect of domain health (DNS, MX, SPF, DMARC, DKIM, etc.), and the context lookups (dns_lookup, ip_lookup, user_agent_parse) are clearly separate. No two tools have overlapping purposes.

Naming Consistency4/5

The majority follow a dossier_<check> pattern, but dns_lookup, ip_lookup, and user_agent_parse break this prefix convention. Despite the inconsistency, the names are still clear and descriptive.

Tool Count4/5

19 tools is slightly above the ideal range but still reasonable for a comprehensive domain security audit server. Each tool serves a specific purpose without redundancy.

Completeness5/5

The tool surface covers nearly every aspect of domain health: DNS, email authentication (SPF, DKIM, DMARC, MTA-STS, TLS-RPT), TLS, CORS, HTTP headers, redirects, web surface, certificate transparency, WHOIS, IP geolocation, and user agent parsing. No obvious gaps for the stated domain focus.

Resources