verify_email_domainRe-check DNS and verify a sending domain.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | Domain ID (from list_email_domains) |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| data | No | The domain after the re-check — its status, and which DNS records are still missing when it did not pass. | |
| success | Yes | True when the call succeeded. A failure comes back as an error result instead. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Output schema / (root)Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+ "$schema": "http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#",
+ "additionalProperties": false,
+ "properties": {
+ "data": {
+ "additionalProperties": {},
+ "description": "The domain after the re-check — its status, and which DNS records are still missing when it did not pass.",
+ "type": "object"
+ },
+ "success": {
+ "description": "True when the call succeeded. A failure comes back as an error result instead.",
+ "type": "boolean"
+ }
+ },
+ "required": [
+ "success"
+ ],
+ "type": "object"
+}Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations are sparse, so the description adds some value by revealing that the tool re-checks DNS records. However, it doesn't disclose whether verification updates a stored status, whether it is asynchronous, or whether it requires special permissions. No contradiction with annotations.
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?
At one sentence, the description is compact and front-loaded with the action ('Re-check DNS'). The tail 'verify a sending domain' partly mirrors the title, but the sentence is still free of filler and easy to scan.
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?
For a one-parameter tool with an output schema, the description is largely sufficient, but it omits the intended trigger (e.g., after DNS setup) and any side-effect caveats. The input schema covers id, and the output schema can cover the result, so the remaining gap is usage context rather than parameter handling.
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?
There is one parameter, and the schema already documents it fully with 'Domain ID (from list_email_domains)'. The description repeats the resource (sending domain) but adds no new parameter-level constraints, defaults, or formatting.
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?
Description uses a concrete verb-resource pairing ('Re-check DNS and verify a sending domain') that clearly conveys an action on a domain. It is distinct from sibling domain operations like add_email_domain, list_email_domains, and remove_email_domain, though it does not explicitly name them. 'Re-check' adds specificity beyond the title.
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 provides no conditional language, prerequisites, or alternative routing to sibling tools. It doesn't state 'use when DNS records have been updated' or 'instead of add_email_domain'. The only prerequisite (Domain ID from list_email_domains) lives in the schema, not the description.
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.