Verify IP whitelisting and email provider configuration
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| domain | No | Domain to check for DNS records (required if include_dns is true) | |
| provider | Yes | Email provider to verify, or "all" for all configured providers | |
| test_email | No | Optional test email address to verify delivery | |
| include_dns | No | Include DNS record verification |
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 the full burden of behavioral disclosure, but it only states the action without revealing side effects, return format, or whether test emails are actually sent. The optional test_email parameter suggests delivery attempts may occur, but this is not disclosed.
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 concise sentence that is easy to parse and front-loads the core purpose. It avoids unnecessary words, though it could be slightly more detailed without becoming verbose.
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?
Given no output schema, no annotations, and a moderately complex verification task, the description is incomplete. It does not explain what constitutes 'verification', what outputs to expect, or how the parameters interact, leaving significant gaps for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly.
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 each parameter is already well-documented. The tool description adds slight context by mention IP whitelisting and provider configuration, but does not deepen understanding of parameter semantics 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 verifies IP whitelisting and email provider configuration, using the specific verb 'verify' and a defined resource. It distinguishes from generic checks like 'check_email_config' by narrowing scope to IP whitelisting and provider setup, but does not explicitly differentiate from similar sibling tools.
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?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as check_email_config or test_email_config. The description does not mention prerequisites, use cases, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer the appropriate context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
