Skip to main content
Glama

email-deliverability

by io.inboxguard

Apply the DNS fix plan

apply_dns_fix
Destructive

Apply a DNS fix plan to a tracked domain by publishing records at the connected registrar. DESTRUCTIVE: it creates/updates/deletes DNS records. Two-step by design — first call get_dns_fix_plan, then pass its connectionId and ops here verbatim. The server re-derives the diff from the latest scan and rejects any op that no longer matches, so an agent can never apply arbitrary records. Requires an owner/admin API key with write or full scope. Re-scan afterward to confirm the fix.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
opsYesThe `ops` array from get_dns_fix_plan, passed verbatim. The server validates each op against a freshly recomputed diff before executing.
domainYesDomain name tracked in the account, e.g. example.com.
connectionIdYesThe connectionId from get_dns_fix_plan.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.

  1. Changed1 schema field changed
    • addedInput schema / properties / connectionId / format
      Added value: +"uuid"
  2. First observed

TDQS

A4.6/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Beyond the destructiveHint annotation, the description adds critical behavioral context: it specifies that the tool creates/updates/deletes DNS records, that the server re-derives the diff and rejects stale ops, and that owner/admin write or full scope is required. This greatly exceeds the annotation's binary flag.

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 description is well-structured and concise: it front-loads the purpose, clearly flags destructiveness, explains the two-step protocol, server validation, auth requirements, and follow-up action. Every sentence contributes meaningful information without redundancy.

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?

The description covers purpose, workflow, prerequisites, validation, auth, and post-action guidance. The only gap is the lack of explicit information about what the tool returns on success or failure, which would be useful given there is no output schema.

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?

The input schema has 100% coverage with detailed property descriptions, including the verbatim passing requirement and server-side validation. The description reinforces this but does not add new parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema already provides.

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 description clearly states the tool applies a DNS fix plan to a tracked domain by publishing records at the connected registrar. It distinguishes itself from the sibling get_dns_fix_plan by explicitly framing the two-step relationship and using a specific verb (apply) with a clear resource.

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?

The description provides explicit when-to-use guidance: first call get_dns_fix_plan, then pass its connectionId and ops verbatim. It also instructs to re-scan afterward and specifies the required API key scope, giving the agent a full operational sequence.

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

All email-deliverability toolsInspect
Try in Browser
RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

A4/5.0
Disambiguation4/5

Tools have distinct purposes overall, but some minor overlap exists between get_domain and get_deliverability_score, as well as between list_scans and get_scan_job. However, descriptions clarify the differences.

Naming Consistency5/5

All tool names follow a clear verb_noun pattern (e.g., analyze_headers, check_blocklists, get_deliverability_score) with consistent snake_case, making it easy for an agent to predict tool names.

Tool Count4/5

26 tools is slightly above the ideal range but appropriate for a comprehensive email deliverability service covering scanning, DNS fixes, DMARC, inbox placement, SNDS, alerts, and sharing. The count feels justified.

Completeness4/5

The tool surface covers core deliverability workflows: scanning, DNS fixes, DMARC, blocklists, inbox placement, SNDS, alerts, and sharing. Minor gaps exist (e.g., no explicit add domain tool), but the scan_domain tool covers that use case.

Resources