Suped DMARC

Add domain

create_domain

Idempotent

Add or restore a monitored domain in Suped without changing DNS.

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": {
      "organizationId": "<organizationId>",
      "domain": "<domain>"
    },
    "name": "create_domain"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`domain`	Yes	Email sending domain, such as example.com.
`organizationId`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedOct 25, 2026

TDQS

B3.2/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the mutation and safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new context with 'without changing DNS' (no DNS record mutation) and the restore behavior, but omits verification requirements, auth/permission needs, and side effects of adding a domain.

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?

A single, front-loaded sentence with no filler. The 'in Suped' branding is mildly redundant, but otherwise every word earns its place.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness3/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a two-parameter mutation tool with annotations and no output schema, the core call intent is covered, but the description leaves the undocumented organizationId and the post-add behavior (verification, return value, duplicate handling) unexplained.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters2/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is only 50% – organizationId has no description – and the description says nothing about either parameter. It does not clarify the required 24-hex organizationId format or the expected domain input, so it fails to compensate for the coverage gap.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb and resource ('Add or restore a monitored domain') and adds scope ('without changing DNS'), which distinguishes it from read-only siblings like get_domains. It stops short of naming a sibling alternative, but the operation itself is unambiguous.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

'Add or restore' implies the use case (registering a new domain or re-enabling an existing one), but there is no explicit guidance on when to prefer this over other flows, no prerequisites, and no note on what happens if the domain already exists.

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

All Suped DMARC 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.

Resources

Need Help?