Skip to main content
Glama
RoscoNL

intodns-mcp

by RoscoNL
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

discover_dkim

Read-onlyIdempotent

Verify a domain's DKIM configuration: without a selector, tests 50 common selectors; with one, performs an exact lookup. Outputs discovery method, coverage note, key tags, strength, and warnings.

Instructions

Read-only DKIM check for a domain. Without selector, heuristically queries 50 common selectors and explicitly reports that a miss is inconclusive because DKIM has no enumeration protocol. With selector, performs one authoritative exact lookup for a selector obtained from a DKIM-Signature header or mail provider. Returns discovery method, coverage note, parsed key tags, public-key strength, and warnings. Use exact mode whenever the selector is known; use check_email_security for the broader SPF/DKIM/DMARC overview. No auth or destructive actions.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
domainYesDomain name only, e.g. example.com (no URL, path, or port)
selectorNoOptional exact DKIM selector, e.g. selector1 or google

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed4 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
    • addedInput schema / properties / selector
      Added value: +{
+  "description": "Optional exact DKIM selector, e.g. selector1 or google",
+  "maxLength": 253,
+  "type": "string"
+}
  2. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

A4.9/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Goes well beyond the annotations by explaining the 50-selector heuristic behavior, the inconclusive-miss caveat due to no DKIM enumeration protocol, the exact lookup behavior, and the return contents. Also explicitly states 'No auth or destructive actions,' which extends the annotation context.

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?

Every sentence earns its place. The description is compact, front-loaded, and covers purpose, modes, outputs, alternatives, and safety without 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?

Despite having no output schema, the description lists expected return values (discovery method, coverage note, key tags, strength, warnings). It also clarifies limitations and relationship to siblings, making the tool self-contained for agent decision-making.

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?

The input schema fully documents both parameters with examples. The description adds crucial semantics by explaining how presence/absence of 'selector' changes the tool's behavior and provides source guidance for obtaining an exact selector (DKIM-Signature header or provider).

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?

Opens with 'Read-only DKIM check for a domain' – a specific verb+resource statement. It clearly distinguishes two modes (heuristic multi-selector vs exact single-selector) and differentiates from sibling check_email_security.

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 tells when to use exact mode ('whenever the selector is known') and directs users to check_email_security for a broader overview. It also warns that heuristic-mode misses are inconclusive, guiding appropriate usage.

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