Check a domain's SPF record: fetch it and evaluate the policy.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| domain | Yes | Domain name, e.g. deinkunde.com |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| ok | No | ||
| all | No | ||
| error | No | ||
| found | No | ||
| terms | No | ||
| domain | No | ||
| record | No | ||
| lookups | No | ||
| warnings | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Output schema / (root)Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+ "$schema": "http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#",
+ "additionalProperties": {},
+ "properties": {
+ "all": {
+ "anyOf": [
+ {
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ {
+ "type": "null"
+ }
+ ]
+ },
+ "domain": {
+ "anyOf": [
+ {
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ {
+ "type": "null"
+ }
+ ]
+ },
+ "error": {
+ "anyOf": [
+ {
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ {
+ "type": "null"
+ }
+ ]
+ },
+ "found": {
+ "anyOf": [
+ {
+ "type": "boolean"
+ },
+ {
+ "type": "null"
+ }
+ ]
+ },
+ "lookups": {
+ "anyOf": [
+ {
+ "type": "number"
+ },
+ {
+ "type": "null"
+ }
+ ]
+ },
+ "ok": {
+ "anyOf": [
+ {
+ "type": "boolean"
+ },
+ {
+ "type": "null"
+ }
+ ]
+ },
+ "record": {
+ "anyOf": [
+ {
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ {
+ "type": "null"
+ }
+ ]
+ },
+ "terms": {
+ "anyOf": [
+ {
+ "items": {
+ "additionalProperties": {},
+ "properties": {
+ "qualifier": {
+ "anyOf": [
+ {
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ {
+ "type": "null"
+ }
+ ]
+ },
+ "term": {
+ "anyOf": [
+ {
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ {
+ "type": "null"
+ }
+ ]
+ },
+ "type": {
+ "anyOf": [
+ {
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ {
+ "type": "null"
+ }
+ ]
+ }
+ },
+ "type": "object"
+ },
+ "type": "array"
+ },
+ {
+ "type": "null"
+ }
+ ]
+ },
+ "warnings": {
+ "anyOf": [
+ {
+ "items": {
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "type": "array"
+ },
+ {
+ "type": "null"
+ }
+ ]
+ }
+ },
+ "type": "object"
+}Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already provide readOnlyHint=true, and the description adds useful behavioral context: it fetches the record and evaluates the policy. This goes beyond the annotation by clarifying the two-step nature of the operation. No contradiction with annotations.
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?
One concise sentence with a colon splitting the action into fetch and evaluate. No wasted words, front-loaded, and the structure aids quick comprehension.
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 single-parameter, read-only DNS lookup tool with an output schema available, the description sufficiently covers the core behavior. It does not need to explain return values because an output schema exists, and the simplicity of the tool means no additional context is required.
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?
The input schema has 100% coverage for the single 'domain' parameter with an example ('e.g. deinkunde.com'). The description adds no additional parameter-level detail, so it defaults to the baseline score of 3.
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: 'Check a domain's SPF record: fetch it and evaluate the policy.' It uses a specific verb ('check') and identifies the resource (domain's SPF record), which differentiates it from sibling tools like dkim_check and dmarc_check that target other DNS 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 description implies usage—if you need to check an SPF record, this is the tool—but it gives no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. It does not name alternatives or exclusions, so it falls short of clear contextual guidance.
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.
Several tools cluster around overlapping diagnostics, such as asn_lookup vs ip_geolocation and website_status vs response_time/redirect_check/http_headers. Descriptions generally clarify the differences, but the boundaries between some tools are not immediately obvious.
Naming conventions are mixed: check_dns and check_ssl use verb-first, while dkim_check, spf_check, and hsts_check use noun-first. There are also varied styles like dns_propagation, domain_expiry, and whois, making the pattern inconsistent but still readable.
At 20 tools, the server falls into the borderline heavy range. Most tools address a distinct diagnostic need, but some could be consolidated, such as website_status overlapping with response_time and redirect_check.
The toolkit covers the core read-only network/domain diagnostic domain well: DNS, email authentication, SSL/TLS, WHOIS, IP intelligence, and website availability. Minor gaps like traceroute or DNSSEC validation exist, but there are no critical missing operations for the apparent purpose.