Skip to main content
Glama
RoscoNL

intodns-mcp

by RoscoNL
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

check_blacklist

Read-onlyIdempotent

Check a domain's MX IPs or an IPv4 against 60 DNSBL/RBL providers to detect mail-server blacklisting. Returns listed/clean status, severity, and removal metadata for reputation triage.

Instructions

Read-only query against the currently configured public DNSBL/RBL providers (roughly 60, with noisy providers explicitly disabled). Provide either domain to resolve and inspect its MX IPv4 addresses or an IPv4 ip for a direct check; at least one is required. Returns each provider's listed/clean result, severity, removal metadata, plus unavailable and disabled provider evidence so timeouts are not misreported as clean. Use for mail-server reputation triage; it is not a delisting service. No auth or destructive actions.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
ipNoIPv4 address to check directly
domainNoDomain name only, e.g. example.com (no URL, path, or port)

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed6 schema fields changedv1.10.0
    • removedInput schema / additionalProperties
      Removed value: -false
    • changedInput schema / properties / domain / description
      Previous value: -"Domain name, e.g. example.com"New value: +"Domain name only, e.g. example.com (no URL, path, or port)"
    • addedInput schema / properties / domain / maxLength
      Added value: +253
    • changedInput schema / properties / ip / description
      Previous value: -"IPv4 or IPv6 address to check directly"New value: +"IPv4 address to check directly"
    • addedInput schema / properties / ip / format
      Added value: +"ipv4"
    • addedInput schema / properties / ip / pattern
      Added value: +"^(?:(?:25[0-5]|2[0-4][0-9]|1[0-9][0-9]|[1-9][0-9]|[0-9])\\.){3}(?:25[0-5]|2[0-4][0-9]|1[0-9][0-9]|[1-9][0-9]|[0-9])$"
  2. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

A4.5/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already cover read-only/idempotent/non-destructive. The description adds valuable context: noisy providers are disabled, and it returns evidence of unavailable/disabled providers so timeouts aren't misreported as clean. This goes beyond the annotation baseline.

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

Conciseness5/5

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

Five sentences, each serving a purpose: scope, input specification, output details, usage intent, and safety. Front-loaded with the core purpose. Zero redundancy.

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

Completeness5/5

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

For a tool with no output schema, the description fully explains what the agent can expect (listed/clean, severity, removal metadata, unavailable/disabled evidence) and clarifies operational constraints (60 providers, auth/destructive notes). Enough for correct invocation and interpretation.

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

Parameters4/5

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

Schema already documents both parameters (100% coverage). The description adds meaning: domain resolves MX IPv4 addresses, IP is a direct check, and at least one is required. This enriches the schema's basic field definitions.

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

Purpose5/5

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

The description clearly states it's a read-only query against DNSBL/RBL providers, distinguishing it from sibling check tools (e.g., check_spf, check_dmarc). It specifies the resource and action precisely, even noting it is not a delisting service.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Explicitly states when to use ('mail-server reputation triage') and when not ('not a delisting service'), plus input requirements (domain or IP, at least one required). It doesn't name alternative tools but provides sufficient context for differentiation.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools