Skip to main content
Glama
RoscoNL

intodns-mcp

by RoscoNL
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

check_dmarc

Read-onlyIdempotent

Fetch and parse the DMARC TXT record to assess policy strength, alignment, and get warnings like missing rua or p=none. Use for DMARC policy review.

Instructions

Read-only fetch and parse of the _dmarc TXT record. Returns parsed tag map (p, sp, rua, ruf, adkim, aspf, pct, fo), policy strength assessment, alignment mode, and warnings (missing rua, p=none, weak alignment, multiple records). Use for DMARC policy review; use check_sender_requirements for combined Google/Yahoo SPF+DKIM+DMARC pass/fail verdict. Single GET, no auth, no side effects.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
domainYesDomain name only, e.g. example.com (no URL, path, or port)

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed3 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
  2. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

A4.7/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, openWorld, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds explicit details: 'Single GET, no auth, no side effects,' which are not in the annotations but enhance transparency regarding HTTP method, authentication, and side effects. No contradiction with annotations.

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?

The description is concise and well-structured: two sentences covering the action, returned data, and usage guidance. It includes a clear list of tags and warnings without unnecessary verbosity, making it easy to parse and understand.

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?

Given there is no output schema, the description sufficiently explains what the tool returns: parsed tag map, policy strength assessment, alignment mode, and warnings. It also notes the read-only nature and lack of auth, covering all key aspects of context. No gaps are apparent.

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 schema description for the 'domain' parameter is complete: 'Domain name only, e.g. example.com (no URL, path, or port).' Since schema coverage is 100%, the baseline is 3, and the tool description does not add any additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema already provides.

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 the tool's function: read-only fetch and parse of the _dmarc TXT record. It also distinguishes from sibling check_sender_requirements by specifying its purpose for DMARC policy review, making it specific and unique among the many check_* tools.

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

Usage Guidelines5/5

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

The description explicitly provides usage context: 'Use for DMARC policy review' and an alternative: 'use check_sender_requirements for combined Google/Yahoo SPF+DKIM+DMARC pass/fail verdict.' This gives clear guidance on when to use this tool versus a related one.

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