Check a domain: disposable/burner list membership, free-provider status, typo suggestion, MX records.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| mx | No | Look up MX records (default true). | |
| domain | Yes | The domain to check. |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden. It states the checks performed but lacks details on behavior such as return format, error handling, or whether it is read-only. This is a gap for a tool with no annotations.
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 a single sentence that front-loads the core purpose and lists specific features. Every word earns its place with no verbosity.
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?
Given the tool's moderate complexity and lack of output schema, the description enumerates the key checks. However, it does not specify the return structure or the format of typo suggestions, leaving some ambiguity.
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 provides descriptions for both parameters, so the description does not need to add much. The description's mention of MX records maps to the 'mx' parameter, adding minimal value beyond the schema. Baseline 3 applies due to 100% schema coverage.
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 verb 'check' and the resource 'domain', and enumerates specific checks (disposable/burner, free-provider, typo suggestion, MX records). This distinguishes it from the sibling tool 'check_email', which presumably checks email addresses.
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 lists what the tool checks but does not explicitly state when to use it versus the sibling tool 'check_email'. There are no when-not or alternative directives, relying on implied differentiation.
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.
The two tools are clearly distinguished by input type: check_domain accepts a domain, check_email accepts an email address. There is some overlap in domain-level checks, but the different inputs and return structures prevent confusion.
Both tools follow the consistent verb_noun pattern: check_domain and check_email, making them predictable and easy to understand.
With only two tools, the server feels slightly under-scoped for a full email verification service. However, each tool packs significant functionality, so the count is borderline acceptable.
The tools cover domain and email reputation checks including disposable detection, MX records, and syntax validation. Missing a common SMTP verification step, which is a notable gap for email verification servers.