SiteCheck Web Intel

DNSSEC check for a domain: whether a DS record exists

security_dnssec_validator

Read-only

DNSSEC check for a domain: whether a DS record exists at the parent zone (the domain is signed), and whether two public validating resolvers (AdGuard DNS, NextDNS) return its A answer with the AD (authenticated) flag. It reads the resolvers' verdict; it does not validate the signature chain itself. Related tools on this server, for a different need: security_mta_sts_validator when you need to check MTA-STS for a mail domain: the _mta-sts TXT record. 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": "security_dnssec_validator"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`domain`	Yes	Domain name such as example.com (required)

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`domain`	No
`source`	No
`verdict`	No
`checkedAt`	No
`resolvers`	No
`dsAtParent`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedOct 23, 2026

TDQS

A4.1/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already cover the read-only and open-world profile, and the description adds meaningful context on top: it reads resolver verdicts rather than performing validation itself, and it discloses a per-success price ($0.002 USDC via x402, Base/Solana/Arc) with the notable policy that failed calls are not charged. The only gap is nothing about latency or what happens if a resolver is unreachable, which is a modest omission given the output schema exists.

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?

Front-loads the definition of the check and puts the sibling pointer and pricing after it, which is the right ordering. The pricing sentence is the longest single clause and slightly outweighs the functional content, but every sentence still carries decision-relevant information.

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?

With one parameter, an output schema, and read-only annotations, the description covers everything an agent needs to decide and call correctly, including cost. It is close to complete; only resolver-failure behavior is unaddressed, which is minor at this complexity.

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 coverage is 100% for the single 'domain' parameter, so the schema already carries the meaning and baseline 3 applies. The description does not add syntax constraints beyond the schema example, though none are really needed for a domain name.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('DNSSEC check for a domain') and then precisely defines what is measured: presence of a DS record at the parent zone plus the AD flag returned by two named public resolvers (AdGuard DNS, NextDNS). It also bounds scope by declaring it does not validate the signature chain, so the agent knows exactly what verdict this produces.

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?

Explicitly routes one adjacent need to a sibling ('security_mta_sts_validator when you need to check MTA-STS for a mail domain'), which is concrete when-to-use-other guidance. It stops short of positioning against the more obviously overlapping siblings like security_dns_records or security_dns_caa_records, so the routing is helpful but incomplete.

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

All SiteCheck Web Intel 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?