txt_lookupLook up all TXT records for a domain. TXT records contain SPF policies, domain verification tokens, DKIM keys, and other metadata.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| domain_name | Yes | The domain to look up TXT records for, e.g. example.com |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, indicating a safe, non-destructive operation. The description adds that it returns 'all' TXT records for a domain, which is useful scoping, but does not disclose network behavior or response details. No contradiction.
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 two concise sentences. The first states the action, the second provides valuable context on TXT record uses, making it informative without waste.
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 read-only DNS lookup with a single parameter, the description fully conveys the operation. The absence of an output schema means the return format need not be detailed, and annotations cover safety.
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 schema fully describes the domain_name parameter with a clear example. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond 'a domain'.
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 states a specific action ('Look up all TXT records for a domain') and clarifies the content of TXT records, distinguishing it from sibling record-type-specific tools like cname_lookup or mx_lookup and from general 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 does not explicitly provide usage guidance or name alternatives. It implies this tool is for obtaining raw TXT records, but does not explain when to choose it over spf_check or dkim_check, which also deal with TXT record content.
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.