check_blocklistsCheck a domain (apex + MX-host IPs) against supported DNS blocklists and return listings, targets checked, and issues (authoritative-side queries; no public-resolver false positives).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| domain | Yes | Domain to check, 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?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructive behavior. The description goes beyond these by explaining that queries use authoritative-side checks and avoid public-resolver false positives, adding valuable behavioral context about how results are obtained and what guarantees are provided.
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?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence with no redundant words. It efficiently packs the verb, scope, outputs, and an important methodology note, every part earning its place.
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 one-parameter, read-only tool with rich annotations, the description is sufficiently complete. It covers what is checked, what is returned, and the underlying query approach. No critical aspects are missing, and the lack of an output schema is compensated by the explicit listing of return contents.
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?
Schema coverage is 100% with a clear parameter description, but the tool description adds extra meaning by clarifying that both the apex domain and MX-host IPs are checked. This extends the understanding of what 'domain' entails beyond the schema's basic example.
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 specifies the action ('Check') and resource ('DNS blocklists'), with the exact scope ('apex + MX-host IPs') and outputs ('listings, targets checked, issues'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like scan_domain or get_dns_fix_plan by focusing specifically on DNS blocklist checks.
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 usage for checking blocklist status, but it does not provide explicit when-to-use guidance or contrast with alternatives like scan_domain. The methodology note ('authoritative-side queries') hints at a use case but no direct comparison is made.
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 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.
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.
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.
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.