SiteCheck Agent Intel & Dev

DNSSEC status for a domain using Cloudflare's public

agent_intel_dnssec_trust_chain_validator

Read-only

DNSSEC status for a domain using Cloudflare's public resolver (1.1.1.1 DNS-over-HTTPS): whether the resolver validated the answer (AD flag), the DS records in the parent zone, and the DNSKEY records with key-signing keys. The validation is done by Cloudflare's resolver, not by this tool walking the chain to the root. Related tools on this server, for a different need: agent_intel_cross_chain_bridge_liquidity when you need across bridge limits for USDC between two chains; agent_intel_eu_vies_vat_batch_validator when you need to check up to 5 EU VAT numbers with the European. Price: $0.002 in USDC per successful call, paid with x402 (Base, Solana or Arc); failed calls are not charged.

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": "agent_intel_dnssec_trust_chain_validator"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`domain`	Yes	Domain such as ietf.org (a URL is reduced to its host)

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`note`	No
`domain`	No
`rcodeA`	No
`source`	No
`verdict`	No
`checkedAt`	No
`dsRecords`	No
`dnskeyCount`	No
`keySigningKeys`	No
`resolverValidated`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedOct 23, 2026

TDQS

A3.5/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Goes well beyond the readOnlyHint/openWorldHint annotations: it discloses the important scope limitation that validation is performed by Cloudflare's resolver rather than by walking the chain to the root, lists the evidence returned, and states the billing model ($0.002 USDC per successful call via x402, failures not charged). It is consistent with the annotations and adds real decision-relevant context.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness2/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The opening sentence is well front-loaded and informative, but roughly half the text is off-topic cross-promotion for unrelated tools (cross-chain bridge limits, EU VAT batch checks), one of which is visibly truncated ('with the European.'). Those sentences do not help an agent select or invoke this tool and actively dilute the signal.

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 tool with an output schema (so return shape needn't be re-explained), the description covers what is checked, who performs validation, and the cost. The only real gap is failure behavior — what status a domain returns when DNSSEC is unsigned or bogus.

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 schema coverage is 100%, with the schema itself explaining that a URL is reduced to its host. The description adds nothing about the domain argument, so the baseline 3 applies; it does not need to compensate for any schema gap.

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?

Names a specific resource and operation: DNSSEC status for a domain, including AD flag, DS records in the parent zone, and DNSKEY/KSK records, and specifies the resolver used (Cloudflare 1.1.1.1 DoH). It is not distinguished from the actually-related siblings on this server (e.g. agent_intel_ssl_certificate_transparency, agent_intel_subdomain_takeover_monitor); the named 'related tools' are unrelated cross-sells.

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?

The 'Related tools ... for a different need' sentence does give a when-to-use contrast, but only for two irrelevant tools (bridge liquidity, EU VAT), not for the DNS/security tools an agent would realistically confuse this with. Usage is implied by the tool name rather than stated as explicit when/when-not guidance.

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

All SiteCheck Agent Intel & Dev tools Inspect

Try in Browser

Claude Code, inside the Godot 4 editorFlockbay puts an AI agent in the real Godot 4 editor: it writes GDScript, runs your game and fixes what breaks. Free, or bring your own Claude Code or Codex.flockbay.comAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources

Need Help?