Skip to main content
Glama

build_dmarc_upgrade

Return a validated DMARC enforcement-upgrade record for a domain. The alignment gate (whether p=reject is safe) is derived server-side from a scan — a caller can never assert alignment. record is null when there is no honest upgrade to offer (the domain does not exist; the DMARC lookup itself hit NXDOMAIN while the existence probe did not resolve; the DMARC lookup temp-failed; or the domain already applies a policy at least as strong as this scan justifies): relay rationale and never compose a record to fill the gap. A returned record also carries np=reject (the DMARCbis tag covering non-existent subdomains, which can have no legitimate aligned mail) unless the domain already publishes an np tag, which is preserved as-is. Present a returned record verbatim; a human must approve before publishing.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
domainYesThe domain to check, e.g. example.com. Bare registrable names and subdomains both work; scheme, path or port do not belong here. Unicode names are accepted and normalized to punycode.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

TDQS

A4.4/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

The description goes well beyond annotations by explaining that alignment is derived server-side from a scan and cannot be asserted by the caller. It details the exact conditions under which record is null, the np=reject behavior with preservation of existing np tags, and instructs to present the record verbatim. These are important behavioral constraints not implied by readOnlyHint or openWorldHint.

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?

The description is detailed but every sentence carries necessary information about result semantics, null conditions, np tag handling, and usage constraints. It is front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by well-structured conditional details. Slightly verbose but justified by the tool's complexity.

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

Completeness5/5

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

Given a single well-documented parameter and the presence of an output schema, the description thoroughly covers the tool's behavior. It explains the return record's nature, null cases, and the required action (verbatim relay and human approval), making it complete for an agent to understand and use the tool correctly.

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?

The schema description for the single parameter `domain` is 100% covered, including accepted formats and punycode normalization. The tool description does not add additional parameter meaning beyond what the schema already provides, so a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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

Purpose5/5

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

The description clearly states 'Return a validated DMARC enforcement-upgrade record for a domain,' specifying both the action (return) and the resource (DMARC enforcement-upgrade record). The word 'validated' and the focus on 'enforcement-upgrade' distinguish it from siblings like generate_dmarc_record or validate_dmarc_record.

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?

The description provides clear context for when to use the tool: to obtain a safe, server-validated DMARC upgrade. It explicitly instructs the caller to never assert alignment and to relay `rationale` when record is null, effectively saying 'do not compose a record to fill the gap.' It also notes a human must approve before publishing, but does not explicitly name alternative tools or when-not-to-use scenarios.

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.

TDQS

A4.4/5.0
Disambiguation5/5

Each tool targets a distinct DNS or email authentication task. Despite multiple DMARC-related tools, their purposes are clearly differentiated: build_dmarc_upgrade upgrades policies, generate_dmarc_record creates new ones, validate_dmarc_record validates pasted records, and scan_domain vs get_report differentiate fresh vs cached scans.

Naming Consistency5/5

All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern in snake_case (e.g., build_dmarc_upgrade, check_record, scan_domain). No mixing of naming conventions, making the set predictable and easy to navigate.

Tool Count5/5

With 11 tools, the server is well-scoped for a DNS/email authentication diagnostics tool. The number covers essential operations without being overwhelming or sparse.

Completeness4/5

The tool set covers core workflows: DMARC management (generate, validate, upgrade, parse reports), DNS checks (propagation, reverse DNS, SPF lookups), and DKIM selector checks. Minor gaps exist, such as the absence of SPF validation or DKIM signature verification, but the main diagnostic and monitoring use cases are supported.