Free public API. Fetch all TXT records on a domain, classifying each as SPF, DKIM, DMARC, BIMI, verification token, or general.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| domain | Yes | Domain to fetch TXT records for. |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already establish read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds valuable context about the API being free and public, plus the classification behavior. It does not mention rate limits or potential response structures, but with annotation coverage, this is sufficient.
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?
Two concise sentences with no wasted words. The first sentence sets important context (free public API), and the second states the core action and classification detail. Perfectly front-loaded and efficient.
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 tool with no output schema, the description is complete: it states the resource (TXT records), the scope (all records on a domain), and the classification categories. Combined with good annotations, nothing critical is missing.
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?
Schema coverage is 100%: the single parameter 'domain' has a clear description. The tool description adds no extra parameter-specific meaning beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.
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 the tool fetches all TXT records for a domain and classifies them into specific types (SPF, DKIM, DMARC, BIMI, verification token, general). This distinguishes it from sibling tools that focus on individual record types or generic 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 implies usage for comprehensive TXT record analysis with classification, which is a clear context. It does not explicitly mention when not to use or name alternatives, but the differentiating classification behavior makes the intended use evident.
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.
Multiple tools operate in the same DNS/domain space, e.g., generic DNS record lookup overlaps with specific CNAME, TXT, SPF, DKIM, and DMARC lookups. Website status checker also overlaps with SSL check and redirect checker, though descriptions clarify their distinct purposes.
All tool names follow a consistent snake_case pattern with a 'tools_' prefix and an action word at the end (lookup, checker, check, finder). This makes the naming highly predictable and uniform.
16 tools is slightly above the ideal 3-15 range, but the domain intelligence scope is broad enough that each tool addresses a specific need without feeling bloated. The count is reasonable for a comprehensive domain/DNS toolkit.
The tool set covers a wide range of domain-related functionality: DNS records, email authentication (SPF, DKIM, DMARC), SSL/TLS, HTTP headers, redirects, WHOIS, availability, subdomain enumeration, and website status. No obvious critical gaps exist for its apparent purpose.
