QuickBuild token-saver tools + x402

Domain intel: DNS, SPF/DMARC, RDAP, email-security grade

domain_intel

Read-onlyIdempotent

[PAID $0.003 USDC per call via x402 on Base; errors are free] One call domain lookup for agents: DNS records A, AAAA, MX, NS, TXT, CAA (Cloudflare DoH), SPF parsed (all qualifier, lookup count, issues), DMARC parsed (policy, pct, rua, issues), RDAP summary (registrar, created, expires, updated, status, DNSSEC via rdap.org) and a 0-100 email-security score with letter grade and reasons. Param name = public domain (example.com; URLs are reduced to their host). IPs/internal names refused (400), NXDOMAIN 404, DNS upstream down 502: never charged.

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "domain_intel"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`name`	No	Public domain name, e.g. example.com (no IPs, no internal TLDs). Optional: defaults to example.com.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

AddedNov 2, 2026

TDQS

A4.1/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already carry readOnly/idempotent/openWorld/destructive, and the description layers on materially new behavior: exact pricing ($0.003 USDC via x402 on Base), a refund policy (errors are free, 'never charged'), and a precise error contract (400 for IPs/internal names, 404 NXDOMAIN, 502 upstream DNS down). That is exactly the kind of cost-and-failure disclosure an agent needs before spending money on a call.

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?

A single dense paragraph with no filler – every clause carries either payload, cost, or error semantics. Leading with the price tag rather than the purpose is defensible for a paid endpoint, though it slightly delays the 'what it does' answer for a skimming agent.

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 one optional parameter, no output schema, and annotations already covering safety, the description carries the remaining load well by enumerating the return fields (DNS types, SPF qualifier/lookup count, DMARC policy/pct/rua, RDAP fields, score plus letter grade and reasons). An agent knows both the cost envelope and roughly what came back.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds meaning the schema does not: URLs are silently reduced to their host and IPs/internal names are explicitly rejected. It does not add format detail beyond that, but the one-parameter surface is fully specified.

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

Purpose4/5

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

The description states a concrete verb and resource ('One call domain lookup') and enumerates the exact payload: A/AAAA/MX/NS/TXT/CAA DNS, parsed SPF and DMARC, RDAP summary, and a 0-100 email-security grade. An agent immediately knows this is a domain-recon tool rather than a URL fetcher or site auditor, though it never names the adjacent siblings (free_site_check, website_audit, address_brief) it should be chosen over.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

Usage context is implied by 'for agents' plus input constraints (public domain only, IPs/internal names refused), which tells the agent when the call will fail. There is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance and no routing to or away from sibling tools, so the agent must infer placement in the toolset.

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

All QuickBuild token-saver tools + x402 tools Inspect

Try in Browser

One endpoint for every MCP toolRayrun runs every MCP server behind one URL and holds the credentials. Each call is decided per client, tool, and argument, then recorded.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources

Need Help?