Skip to main content
Glama

Confirme · domaine

confirme_domaine
Read-onlyIdempotent

Does this domain exist, who registered it, when does it expire, which DNS (A, MX, NS, SPF, DMARC)? Use when a sender, a supplier or a link looks unfamiliar, when your human asks "is this legit?", or before saying "the domain is set up". Signed receipt included.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
cleNoOptional: your Confirme key (cj_…) if this server URL does not already carry ?cle=. Get one free with confirme_sac.
domaineYesDomain name or URL or email

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed1 schema field changed
    • addedInput schema / properties / cle
      Added value: +{
      +  "description": "Optional: your Confirme key (cj_…) if this server URL does not already carry ?cle=. Get one free with confirme_sac.",
      +  "type": "string"
      +}
  2. First observed

TDQS

A4/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, open-world behavior. The description adds that it returns a signed receipt, a non-obvious output trait, and lists the specific records it checks, adding valuable context beyond annotations.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Two tightly packed sentences: first sentence defines scope and output, second gives usage contexts and a notable feature. No redundancy, well front-loaded.

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 read-only lookup with no output schema, the description adequately covers what the tool returns (domain data, DNS records, signed receipt) and when to use it. It could specify output structure more, but annotations and schema carry the rest.

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%, so the schema already documents both parameters. The description mentions DNS record types but doesn't add syntax or format details for the 'domaine' or 'cle' parameters; baseline 3 applies.

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?

The description enumerates what the tool retrieves about a domain—existence, registrant, expiry, DNS records—making its domain-verification purpose clear. It does not explicitly name the action (e.g., 'look up') or differentiate from sibling confirmation tools, but the domain-specific content is distinct.

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 explicit when-to-use scenarios: unfamiliar sender/supplier/link, questions of legitimacy, pre-assertion of setup. No when-not-to-use or alternative sibling mentioned, but the contexts are concrete.

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

Try in Browser

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.