Skip to main content
Glama

dns-doctor

by dev.dnsdoctor

validate_dmarc_record

Read-onlyIdempotent

Validate a pasted DMARC record: parsed tags, level'd findings, and whether it is valid. No DNS lookup — pass the record string itself. upgrade_record previews a stronger policy and is capped at p=quarantine: a pasted record carries no alignment evidence, so p=reject needs a full scan (use build_dmarc_upgrade). Present any returned record verbatim.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
recordYesThe DMARC record text to validate, e.g. 'v=DMARC1; p=none; rua=mailto:reports@example.com'. The record value only — not the _dmarc hostname it is published at.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

TDQS

A4.9/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already cover read-only, idempotent, safe behavior. The description adds beyond that by disclosing the no-DNS-lookup constraint and instructing 'Present any returned record verbatim,' which aids agent behavior without contradicting 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?

Every sentence serves a distinct purpose: purpose, input constraint, alternative guidance, and output handling. It is front-loaded with the core action and remains compact without redundancy.

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?

With a rich output schema and strong annotations, the description fills all remaining gaps: when to use, what not to expect (no DNS), how to handle output, and relationship to siblings. Nothing important is missing for a simple single-parameter validation tool.

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

Parameters4/5

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

Schema covers the single parameter at 100%, so baseline is 3. The description reinforces semantics by clarifying the record is a string value (not hostname) and adds context about p=reject limitations, adding value beyond the schema.

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 the tool validates a pasted DMARC record, listing specific outputs (parsed tags, findings, validity). It distinguishes itself from siblings by explicitly noting 'No DNS lookup' and contrasting with upgrade_record and build_dmarc_upgrade.

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

Usage Guidelines5/5

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

Provides explicit when-to-use guidance: 'pass the record string itself' and 'No DNS lookup.' It also names alternatives (upgrade_record for previews, build_dmarc_upgrade for p=reject via full scan), making the decision boundary clear.

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

All dns-doctor toolsInspect
Try in Browser
RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

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.

Resources