Generate all required DNS records (A, MX, SPF, DKIM, DMARC) for autonomous email. Outputs copyable records for your DNS provider.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| ipv4 | Yes | Your dedicated IPv4 address (from WireGuard provisioning) | |
| domain | Yes | Your email domain (e.g. company.com) | |
| dmarc_policy | No | DMARC policy (default: reject) | |
| dkim_selector | No | DKIM selector (default: emailmcp) | |
| mail_hostname | No | Mail server hostname (default: mail.domain) |
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?
No annotations are provided, so the description bears the burden of disclosing behavior. It states that the tool 'Outputs copyable records for your DNS provider,' which explains what the tool produces and that it's a generation action rather than a mutation. It does not mention side effects or prerequisites, but for a generator tool the behavior is reasonably transparent.
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 two sentences long, front-loaded with the primary action, and contains no filler. Every word adds value, specifying the exact record types and the output format.
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 generation tool with 5 parameters and no output schema, the description explains the purpose, output format (copyable records), and the context (autonomous email). It does not detail the exact output structure, but that is not necessary for understanding the tool's core function. The absence of an output schema is mitigated by the clear statement about copyable DNS records.
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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all parameters thoroughly. The description does not add parameter-specific meaning beyond what the schema provides, which meets the baseline of 3 for high coverage.
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's function: 'Generate all required DNS records (A, MX, SPF, DKIM, DMARC) for autonomous email.' It uses a specific verb (generate) and resource (DNS records), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_domain_dns_records that likely retrieve existing records.
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 phrase 'for autonomous email' provides clear context on when to use this tool. It implies this should be used when setting up or configuring DNS for an autonomous email domain. While it doesn't explicitly exclude alternatives or name them, the context is specific enough for an agent to select it over retrieval tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
