Checks DKIM configuration for all domains to confirm proper email authentication setup.
Validate current DKIM configuration for all domains
This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.
{
"id": 1,
"jsonrpc": "2.0",
"method": "tools/call",
"params": {
"arguments": {},
"name": "validate_dkim"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v2.0.0Does 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 only states the high-level action of validation but does not explain whether it performs external DNS lookups, whether it is read-only, or what it returns on success or failure. This leaves significant behavioral ambiguity.
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 sentence that is front-loaded with the key verb and resource. It uses no unnecessary words and is immediately scannable, making it an excellent model of conciseness.
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?
As a simple tool with no parameters and no output schema, the description is minimally complete. However, it does not explain what 'validate' means in practice—such as what checks are performed or the format of the result—so the agent may need additional information to fully understand the tool's behavior.
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 zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description adds useful semantic scope ('for all domains') that is not present in the empty schema, providing context that there is no per-domain filtering.
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 the specific verb 'Validate' with the resource 'DKIM configuration' and clarifies scope with 'for all domains'. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like enable_dkim or ensure_dkim_keys, which modify or ensure rather than validate.
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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as validate_spf or validate_ptr_records. There are no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use instructions, leaving the agent to infer based on the tool name alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.