Run a security scan on a domain to detect DNS misconfigurations, missing SPF/DKIM/DMARC records, cookie security issues, and other web security vulnerabilities. Returns findings with severity levels (critical, high, medium, low, info).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| domain | Yes | Domain name to security scan (e.g. example.com) |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses the outputs (findings with severity levels) and the scan scope, which is informative. It doesn't mention potential side effects or authentication needs, but for a scan tool this is less critical.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two sentences, front-loaded with action, no fluff. It earns its place and is easy to parse.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple one-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, scope, and return format. It lacks details on any prerequisites or limitations, but these are minimal for this kind of tool.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema fully documents the single domain parameter, so baseline is 3. The description confirms the domain input but doesn't add syntax or additional constraints beyond the schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool runs a security scan on a domain and lists specific checks (DNS misconfigurations, SPF/DKIM/DMARC, cookie security, web vulnerabilities). This distinguishes it from siblings like dns_health or ssl_certificate by covering a broader security posture.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies when to use (when you need a security scan for a domain) but doesn't explicitly compare with sibling tools or specify when not to use. It provides clear context but no exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Tools have mostly distinct purposes, e.g., dns_lookup vs dns_record vs dns_propagation are different operations. A few overlaps like bimi_check versus bimi_vmc and dns_lookup versus dns_record could cause slight confusion, but descriptions are clear enough.
All tools use snake_case with consistent verb_noun pattern (e.g., dns_lookup, bimi_check, uptime_check). The my_* prefix for account-specific tools provides a clear sub-pattern. No mixed conventions.
23 tools is somewhat high but justified for a DNS/domain monitoring server covering lookups, health checks, security, SSL, RDAP, BIMI, uptime, and account management. Each tool adds distinct value, though a few could be merged.
Covers DNS, SSL, security, hosting, BIMI, RDAP, and account monitoring comprehensively. Minor gaps: no direct WHOIS (RDAP covers registration) and no DNS record modification tools (read-only focus). Overall well-rounded.
