Audit a domain’s DNS email security in real time by checking MX records, SPF syntax, DMARC policy enforcement, and DKIM public keys.
Real-time DNS audit of domain Mail Exchange (MX) records, SPF syntax, DMARC policy enforcement, and DKIM public keys.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| domain | Yes | The domain name to audit (e.g. "aliasmail.space" or "github.com") |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description must carry the behavioral burden. 'Real-time' usefully signals live external DNS lookups, and the enumerated checks clarify scope, but the description does not state whether the operation is read-only, what happens on lookup failure, or what kind of result is returned.
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 with no wasted words. It immediately states the operation, the real-time nature, and the exact records audited.
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?
For a simple one-parameter tool with full schema coverage, the description adequately states the checks performed. However, with no annotations and no output schema, it does not explain result structure, failure behavior, or selection guidance against sibling diagnostic tools.
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 schema has 100% description coverage and fully documents the single 'domain' parameter with examples. The description does not add any parameter-level detail beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline of 3 applies.
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 uses a specific verb-plus-resource ('DNS audit of domain') and enumerates the exact record types checked: MX, SPF, DMARC, and DKIM. It is clearly a DNS-record checker rather than an email-content or deliverability tool, but it does not explicitly differentiate itself from sibling tools such as aliasmail_validate_email or aliasmail_analyze_headers.
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 says what the tool does but gives no guidance on when to use it versus alternatives such as aliasmail_validate_email, aliasmail_check_disposable, or aliasmail_health_check. There are no stated preconditions, exclusions, or routing cues for choosing this tool.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.