verify_sending_domainTrigger Resend to re-check the domain's DNS records, persist the new status. Call after adding the DNS records returned by add_sending_domain. Status flips to 'verified' once SPF + DKIM + MX all check out.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | sending domain id from list_sending_domains |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Input schema / properties / id / descriptionAdded value: +"sending domain id from list_sending_domains"Output schema / (root)Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+ "$schema": "http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#",
+ "additionalProperties": false,
+ "properties": {
+ "result": {}
+ },
+ "required": [
+ "result"
+ ],
+ "type": "object"
+}Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Adds detail beyond annotations: describes persistence, status flip to 'verified' upon SPF+DKIM+MX success. Consistent with idempotentHint and openWorldHint.
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?
Three efficient sentences: action+effect, usage guidance, and success condition. No redundant information.
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?
Covers trigger, precondition, and verification criteria. With output schema present, return values need no elaboration. Lacks error handling, but sufficient for the tool's scope.
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 already describes the single 'id' parameter with 100% coverage. Description adds no new parameter semantics but provides usage context.
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 action ('re-check domain DNS records'), the resource ('sending domain'), and the effect ('persist new status'). It also ties to sibling 'add_sending_domain' for context.
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?
Explicitly instructs 'Call after adding the DNS records returned by add_sending_domain', providing a clear precondition. However, it does not mention when not to use or alternative tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.