Skip to main content
Glama
RoscoNL

intodns-mcp

by RoscoNL
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

check_sender_requirements

Read-onlyIdempotent

Verify domain readiness for Google/Yahoo bulk-sender requirements by checking SPF, DKIM, DMARC, MX, and PTR/FCrDNS. Get pass/fail per requirement and a readiness summary before campaigns.

Instructions

Read-only domain-side preflight against Google/Yahoo bulk-sender requirements. Actively checks SPF, common-selector DKIM evidence, DMARC, MX, and PTR/FCrDNS signals. TLS use, one-click unsubscribe, complaint rate, and From-header behavior require a real sent message/provider telemetry and are returned as informational follow-up items, not false passes. Returns per-requirement pass/fail/warning/info plus an explicitly limited readiness summary. Use before a campaign; use analyze_raw_email or create_email_test to verify message-level requirements. Single GET, no auth.

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

A4.6/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Adds behavioral details beyond annotations: single GET, no auth, returns informational follow-up items rather than false passes, and describes output structure (pass/fail/warning/info + readiness summary). No contradiction with readOnly/idempotent/destructive hints.

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 slightly verbose but each sentence contributes meaning, is front-loaded with the core purpose, and flows logically. Could be tightened but remains effective.

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?

With no output schema, the description adequately explains return format and scope. It covers limitations (messaging-level checks) and provides a complete picture for a simple domain-only preflight tool, considering the rich annotations and straightforward parameter.

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?

Schema coverage is 100% for the single domain parameter, and the description adds no extra parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema fully documents the parameter.

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 domain-side preflight against Google/Yahoo bulk-sender requirements, enumerating checks (SPF, DKIM, DMARC, MX, PTR/FCrDNS) and explicitly distinguishing from message-level tools like analyze_raw_email and create_email_test.

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?

Explicitly says 'Use before a campaign' and notes which requirements are not covered (TLS, unsubscribe, etc.) plus directs to alternatives for message-level verification, providing clear when/when-not guidance.

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