ptr_lookupReverse DNS lookup. Find the hostname associated with an IP address. A valid PTR record is important for email sending reputation.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| ip_address | Yes | The IP address to look up, e.g. 8.8.8.8 or 142.250.80.46 |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering safety and idempotency. The description adds domain context (email reputation) but no additional behavioral traits such as rate limits or error conditions. With annotations present, this is adequate but not rich.
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 sentences, each adding value: it names the operation, defines the result, and gives practical context. No fluff or repetition.
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 simple one-parameter lookup tool with strong annotations and no output schema, the description sufficiently explains purpose and context. The email reputation note provides meaningful situational guidance, making it complete.
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?
The single parameter ip_address is fully documented in the schema with an example ('8.8.8.8 or 142.250.80.46'). The description does not add further parameter-level detail, but schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline of 3 applies.
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 'Reverse DNS lookup' and specifies the action 'Find the hostname associated with an IP address'. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like dns_lookup or cname_lookup by emphasizing the inverse mapping from IP to hostname.
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 gives a clear context for use: 'A valid PTR record is important for email sending reputation'. This implies when to use it (e.g., email deliverability checks) but does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it, so it falls short of a 5.
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.
Each tool has a specific purpose, but dns_lookup overlaps with cname/mx/ptr/txt lookups since it returns all record types. The 'check' tools validate records while 'lookup' tools merely retrieve them, which helps differentiate, but an agent could still confuse e.g., txt_lookup with dkim_check.
Naming follows a noun_action pattern (e.g., bimi_check, mx_lookup) but uses inconsistent actions: check, lookup, finder, and generate. 'imap_finder' and 'smtp_finder' break the noun_verb pattern, and there is no uniform verb choice.
With 16 tools, the count is at the upper edge of reasonable for an email deliverability domain. The individual DNS checks and server tests are justified, but some consolidation (e.g., a single lookup tool with record type parameter) could reduce redundancy.
Covers critical authentication checks (SPF, DKIM, DMARC, BIMI), blacklist checks, DNS lookups, and SMTP/IMAP connection tests. Missing DKIM generation and deeper reputation tools, but core deliverability verification is well-covered.