Verify DKIM signing status and active key configuration for accepted domains in Microsoft 365 tenants to confirm email authentication is correctly enabled.
Verifies DKIM signing status and active key configuration for tenant accepted domains.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does not state that the operation is read-only, what permissions are required, or any other behavioral trait beyond the basic purpose. The verb 'verifies' implies a read, but this is not made explicit.
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, front-loaded sentence that contains no filler. It is appropriately sized for a simple verification tool and communicates the essential purpose immediately.
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?
The tool is simple, has no parameters, and an output schema exists, so the description need not explain return values. It adequately states what is verified, but the absence of any annotation or behavioral note leaves a minor gap around read-only safety and permissions.
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 tool takes zero parameters, and the schema is empty with full description coverage. Per the scoring rule, a zero-parameter tool has a baseline of 4, and there is no additional parameter semantics for the description to add.
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 states a specific verb (verifies) and resource (DKIM signing status and active key configuration for tenant accepted domains), so an agent can understand the core action. However, it does not explicitly differentiate this tool from the potentially overlapping sibling compliance_audit_domain_signatures, which limits it to a 4 rather than a 5.
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, nor does it state any prerequisites or conditions. It simply declares what the tool does, leaving the agent to infer usage context from the name alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.