check_email_securityCheck a domain's email authentication: SPF, DKIM (common selectors), and DMARC policy. Flags spoofable domains.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| domain | Yes | Domain, 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 declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint. Description adds specific details about checking common DKIM selectors and flagging spoofable domains, which goes beyond annotations. No contradictions.
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?
Single sentence, front-loaded with purpose, no redundant words. Efficiently conveys what the tool does.
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, description hints at output by mentioning 'flags spoofable domains.' For a simple tool, it is mostly complete. Could elaborate on the format of results.
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 covers 100% of parameters with description for domain. Description adds no further parameter-specific semantics beyond the schema's 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?
Description clearly states the tool checks SPF, DKIM, and DMARC for a domain and flags spoofable domains. It distinguishes from siblings which cover other security aspects like SSL, headers, etc.
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 explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. Context from siblings implies use for email authentication, but lacks explicit alternatives or exclusions.
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.
Each tool targets a distinct aspect of website analysis: AI visibility, email security, exposed files, security headers, SEO, SSL, and a general scan. No two tools overlap in purpose, making it easy for an agent to select the right one.
Six of seven tools follow the 'check_<subject>' pattern, which is clear and consistent. The outlier 'scan_website' breaks the pattern but is still understandable. Overall, naming is predictable with a minor deviation.
Seven tools is an appropriate number for a website scanning/analysis server. It covers key areas (security, SEO, AI visibility) without being overwhelming. Each tool earns its place by addressing a specific need.
The tool surface covers major website concerns: security (headers, SSL, exposed files, email), SEO, and AI visibility. The general 'scan_website' tool likely fills gaps like performance and secrets. Missing some niche checks (e.g., accessibility), but the core is well-covered.