deliverability_audit
SPF/DKIM/DMARC deliverability audit for a sending domain ($0.003 USDC on Base, x402)
Input Schema
TableJSON Schema
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| domain | Yes | Domain to audit, e.g. openai.com |
sigtap Agent Tools
Schema Changelog
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
- First observed
TDQS
A3.5/5.0
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses the cost and payment rail ($0.003 USDC on Base, x402), and 'audit' implies a read-only check, but it does not explicitly state side effects, external lookups, or output behavior.
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?
A single, information-dense sentence that front-loads the core purpose and adds the critical cost detail without any fluff. Every element earns its place.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool is simple with one parameter and the cost is disclosed, but there is no output schema and the description does not describe what the audit returns or how results are formatted. An agent can invoke it, but it may not know what to expect back.
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 description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds the meaningful nuance that the domain should be a sending domain, but it does not elaborate on formatting, normalization, or how the domain value is used beyond the schema.
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 clearly states the tool performs an SPF/DKIM/DMARC deliverability audit on a sending domain, making the resource and focus specific. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from the sibling email_grade, but the protocol-level detail provides enough clarity.
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 phrase 'for a sending domain' implies this should be used when a domain's email authentication records need checking. There is no explicit guidance about when not to use it or how it compares to alternatives like email_grade.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Try in Browser
Glama MCP Gateway
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
TDQS
A3.5/5.0
Disambiguation5/5
Each tool has a clear, non-overlapping purpose: catalog lists the paid tools, and the others cover distinct utilities like crypto pricing, email deliverability, hashing, JWT decoding, regex, slugify, UUID generation, and weather. Even the three email-related tools are clearly separated by description: deliverability audit, score, and template.
Naming Consistency3/5
Most tools follow a lowercase snake_case noun_noun pattern (crypto_price, domain_age, email_grade), but catalog and weather are bare nouns, slugify is verb-based, and jwt_decode is object+verb. The pattern is readable despite the inconsistency, but not uniform.
Tool Count4/5
Thirteen tools is within the reasonable range for a paid micro-tool marketplace, and each tool has its own niche. The presence of a meta-catalog tool plus 12 discrete utilities makes the count feel slightly like a grab-bag, but still well-scoped for the stated purpose.
Completeness4/5
The advertised surface is a catalog of exactly 12 paid tools, and all 12 utilities are present and functional with free preview routes mentioned. There is no obvious missing operation for a stateless utility collection, though the heterogeneous nature of the tools makes completeness less meaningful than for a focused domain server.