Parse SPF / DMARC / DKIM presence and policy from TXT records (via DoH). SPF all-qualifier (strict/softfail/neutral/pass), DMARC p= policy + pct + rua, and best-effort DKIM selector probing. Read-only; price 0.0 (free).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| domain | Yes | Domain name to check | |
| dkimSelectors | No | Optional DKIM selectors to probe (default: common selectors). |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses read-only behavior, cost, and 'best-effort DKIM selector probing' as a limitation. It does not detail error handling or response format, but the information provided is adequate for safe invocation.
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?
The description is three concise sentences, front-loaded with the main action, then detailing extraction specifics, then behavioral/cost info. No wasted words.
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?
Given the tool's simplicity (2 params, no output schema), the description sufficiently explains what is extracted. It lacks output format details, but that is acceptable without a schema. Error handling is not mentioned, but the tool is straightforward.
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 coverage is 100% with descriptions for both parameters. The description adds value by stating 'Optional DKIM selectors to probe (default: common selectors)', clarifying the default behavior beyond the schema's 'Optional DKIM selectors to probe'.
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?
The description clearly states 'Parse SPF / DMARC / DKIM presence and policy from TXT records (via DoH)', specifying the exact verb and resource. It details the extracted policies (SPF all-qualifier, DMARC p/pct/rua, DKIM selectors), distinguishing it from sibling tools like domain_intel_dns_lookup which is a generic DNS lookup.
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?
The description includes 'Read-only; price 0.0 (free)', providing clear usage context. It lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool over alternatives like domain_intel_dns_lookup, but the specific focus on email authentication implicitly directs the agent.
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.
Most tools are clearly distinguished by domain prefixes (e.g., bid_watch, grant_watch) and specific action verbs. However, the high number of similarly structured watch tools could still cause confusion, though descriptions clarify exact purposes.
Every tool follows a consistent `domain_subdomain_action` pattern with underscores, e.g., `agent_audit_query`, `bid_watch_search`. Even long names like `commerce_catalog_agent_readiness_score` adhere to this structure.
With 147 tools, the server is far too broad, covering weather, carbon estimates, domain intel, and more—well beyond its stated 'Japan public-data ledgers' scope. This sheer volume overwhelms agents and dilutes focus.
The server offers many read-only tools for Japanese public data (bids, grants, licenses, etc.), but lacks create/update/delete operations for those domains. Additionally, numerous unrelated tools (e.g., carbon estimates, weather) feel tacked on, leaving gaps in core coverage.