Core dossier check: Look up a domain's TLS-RPT (SMTP TLS Reporting) policy. Use to confirm the domain receives reports of SMTP-TLS failures. Resolves _smtp._tls. TXT via Cloudflare DoH; 5s timeout. Returns a CheckResult; not_applicable when no record is published.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| domain | Yes | Public FQDN, e.g. example.com. Must be resolvable on the public internet; IPs, ports, paths, and protocol prefixes are rejected. |
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 provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It reveals the DNS record resolved (_smtp._tls.<domain> TXT), the resolver (Cloudflare DoH), the timeout (5s), and the return behavior (CheckResult, not_applicable when no record). This is strong transparency for a read-only lookup.
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 compact and front-loaded. Every sentence adds useful information: what it does, when to use it, the resolution mechanism, and the return behavior. No filler or repetition of schema details.
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 lookup tool with no output schema, this description is complete. It explains the purpose, the technical mechanism, and the expected result. The sibling context clarifies how it fits into the dossier toolset without needing further elaboration.
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% and the domain parameter is well-documented. The description adds value beyond the schema by showing exactly how the domain is used in the DNS query (_smtp._tls.<domain> TXT), which helps the agent understand the parameter's semantic role.
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 uses a specific verb ('Look up') and clearly identifies the resource ('a domain's TLS-RPT (SMTP TLS Reporting) policy'). It distinguishes itself from siblings like dossier_mta_sts and dns_lookup by focusing on the TLS-RPT policy and its purpose.
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?
It explicitly states when to use it: 'Use to confirm the domain receives reports of SMTP-TLS failures.' While it doesn't name alternatives or exclusions, this clear context is sufficient for a specialized lookup tool, especially given the sibling list.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.