check_domain_deliverability
Check SPF, DKIM, DMARC records for a domain
Input Schema
TableJSON Schema
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| domain | Yes | Domain to check (e.g. thinkandautomate.dev) |
Mailcannon
TDQS
B3.3/5.0
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but only states the action without detailing what the check entails (e.g., validation level, read-only nature, or output format).
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?
The description is a single concise sentence with no extraneous information.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the simple input (one parameter) and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate but lacks information about return values or error conditions.
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?
Schema description coverage is 100%, and the tool description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema's parameter description. Baseline 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 'Check SPF, DKIM, DMARC records for a domain' uses a specific verb and resource, clearly distinguishing it from siblings like 'check_email_spam_score' and 'get_deliverability'.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives; no prerequisites or exclusions are mentioned.
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
B3.3/5.0
Disambiguation5/5
Each tool targets a distinct action and resource. Campaign lifecycle steps (create, update, delete, schedule, pause, resume) are clearly separate from contact management (add, remove, update tags) and provider/domain operations. No two tools have overlapping purposes.
Naming Consistency5/5
All tools follow a consistent verb_noun pattern with underscores (e.g., add_contact, check_domain_deliverability, delete_campaign_step). Mixing of singular/plural nouns (list_campaigns vs list_tags) is intentional and does not break consistency.
Tool Count4/5
34 tools is high but justified for a full-featured email campaign server covering campaigns, contacts, providers, scheduling, deliverability, and task management. A few tools like check_email_spam_score and check_step_spam_score could be merged, but overall the count is reasonable.
Completeness5/5
The tool surface covers the complete CRM lifecycle: campaign CRUD, step management, contact CRUD with tags, provider setup, scheduling, deliverability checks, and spam analysis. Only minor gaps like per-campaign analytics or import/export exist, but core workflows are fully covered.