Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In

Factline

by io.github.snefhew
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

Is your firm's domain easy to fake? (free)

firm_check
Read-onlyIdempotent

Free. Use when the user asks whether criminals can send mail as their firm or whether lookalike domains of it exist: DMARC and SPF status of the firm's domain and registered lookalike domains (typos, swapped letters). Input: domain.

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": "firm_check"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
domainYesThe firm's domain, e.g. example.nl

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Added

TDQS

A4.5/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

While annotations handle the read-only nature, the description adds crucial behavioral context by specifying the technical checks performed (DMARC/SPF status) and the scope of lookalike detection (typos, swapped letters).

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 definition is highly concise and well-structured, front-loading the free service status and the specific use case immediately. There is zero wasted language.

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?

For a single-parameter, read-only tool, the definition is complete. It covers the 'what', 'why', and the necessary input, leaving no ambiguities for the agent.

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?

Given that the schema coverage is 100%, the description does not add significant semantic value to the single 'domain' parameter. It confirms the input type but doesn't explain specialized usage beyond what the schema already implies.

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 tool explicitly identifies its purpose: determining if a firm's domain is easy to fake. It specifies checking DMARC and SPF status, which clearly differentiates it from generic domain checks.

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

Usage Guidelines5/5

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

It provides precise usage guidance by stating exactly when to use the tool: when a user asks if criminals can spoof their firm's email or if lookalike domains exist.

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

All Factline toolsInspect
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