secureIT Sicherheits-Checks

Domain-Check (SPF, DKIM, DMARC)

dns_check

Prüft die E-Mail-Schutzeinträge einer Domain direkt aus dem öffentlichen DNS und bewertet sie verständlich. Kein E-Mail-Versand, Ergebnis sofort. Gut geeignet für die Frage „Ist meine Domain gegen Absenderfälschung geschützt?".

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "domain": "<domain>"
    },
    "name": "dns_check"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`domain`	Yes	Die zu prüfende Domain, z. B. "example.com". Eine E-Mail-Adresse oder URL wird automatisch auf die Domain reduziert.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedOct 13, 2026

TDQS

A3.9/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it discloses the two most relevant traits: no side effects ("Kein E-Mail-Versand") and synchronous timing ("Ergebnis sofort") – which notably distinguishes it from the async *_anfordern/*_status siblings. It omits any mention of rate limits, caching, or failure behavior, keeping it short of 5.

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?

Three short sentences, purpose front-loaded, followed by the safety/timing note and then the use case. Every sentence carries information; only "bewertet sie verständlich" is close to filler.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a single-parameter, read-only DNS lookup with no output schema and no annotations, the description is nearly sufficient: it covers what is checked, that nothing is sent, and that the result is immediate. It stops short of describing the shape of the evaluation result, which is the only real gap.

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?

Only one parameter, and the schema already documents it at 100% coverage, including the useful "email/URL is auto-reduced to the domain" behavior. The description adds no param semantics beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb ("prüft") and resource ("E-Mail-Schutzeinträge einer Domain") with the mechanism ("direkt aus dem öffentlichen DNS"), and the title narrows it to SPF/DKIM/DMARC. It does not explicitly name the sibling it contrasts with (e.g. spoofing_check_anfordern), but the DNS-based, immediate nature makes it distinguishable.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

Gives a concrete use case via the question "Ist meine Domain gegen Absenderfälschung geschützt?". This establishes clear context for when to reach for it, though it names no alternatives or exclusions (e.g. when to prefer the async spoofing/mailcheck siblings).

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

All secureIT Sicherheits-Checks 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?