alderpost-mcp

domain_shield

Scan domains for security configuration issues including SPF, DKIM, DMARC, SSL, MX, and DNSSEC with a comprehensive 0-100 score.

Instructions

Domain security scan: SPF, DKIM, DMARC, SSL, MX, DNSSEC. 7 checks scored 0-100. Price: $0.25 USDC on Base.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "domain": "<domain>"
    },
    "name": "domain_shield"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`domain`	Yes	Domain to scan (e.g. example.com)

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.0.0Apr 15, 2026

TDQS

B3.2/5.0

Behavior3/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the 7 security checks performed and the scoring range (0-100), which adds useful behavioral context. However, it doesn't mention rate limits, authentication needs, error handling, or what happens during the scan process beyond the listed checks.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is appropriately sized with two sentences that efficiently convey the scan purpose, checks, scoring, and pricing. Every element serves a purpose, though the pricing information could be considered slightly extraneous to the core functionality.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness3/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a single-parameter tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description provides adequate context about what the tool does and what it returns (7 checks scored 0-100). However, it lacks details on output format, error cases, or how results are structured, leaving some gaps in completeness.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The input schema has 100% description coverage with a clear parameter description for 'domain'. The description doesn't add any meaningful parameter semantics beyond what the schema already provides, so it meets the baseline of 3 for high schema coverage.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the tool performs a 'Domain security scan' with specific checks listed (SPF, DKIM, DMARC, SSL, MX, DNSSEC), which is a specific verb+resource combination. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'threat_pulse' or 'compliance_check' that might also involve security assessments.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines2/5

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. It mentions a price of $0.25 USDC, which implies a cost consideration, but doesn't specify when this tool is appropriate compared to other security-related sibling tools or general contexts.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Deploy Server