Skip to main content
Glama

HTTPfy network & DNS tools

CAA record check

caa_check
Read-onlyIdempotent

Find the CAA records that apply to a domain (climbing to parent domains per RFC 8659) and list which certificate authorities may issue certificates.

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": "caa_check"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
domainYesDomain or hostname (www.example.com)

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observed

TDQS

A4/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, and open-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavior beyond them by disclosing the RFC 8659 parent-domain climb, which affects which records are returned. It stops short of stating the no-CAA-record case (implicit allow-all), which would have made this a 5.

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?

One sentence, front-loaded with the action and result, with the parent-climb caveat in parentheses rather than as trailing noise. Nothing is wasted.

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 one-parameter read-only DNS lookup with no output schema, the description covers purpose, resolution behavior, and the shape of the answer (which CAs may issue). The only meaningful omission is the empty-result semantics, which matters because an absent CAA record means unrestricted issuance.

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% for the single parameter, with an example value (www.example.com), so the schema already does the work. The description adds no extra meaning about the domain argument, such as whether a bare apex or wildcard is accepted; baseline 3 applies.

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?

A specific verb and resource ("Find the CAA records that apply to a domain... and list which certificate authorities may issue certificates") that makes the tool's output unambiguous. It is clearly separable from the other DNS/email-auth checks in the sibling list without opening any schema.

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?

Usage is only implied: the description tells you what the tool returns, so an agent can infer it is for checking CAA issuance policy, but there is no explicit when-to-use framing, no prerequisites, and no pointer to related checks (e.g. ssl_certificate_check or dns_lookup).

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.