DMARC Examiner MCP

verify_domain

Re-check a domain's DNS to confirm the DMARC record includes the organization's reporting email, then updates the verification status upon success.

Instructions

Re-check a domain's DNS to confirm the DMARC record contains the organization's reporting email. Updates status to verified on success.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "domain_id": "<domain_id>"
    },
    "name": "verify_domain"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`domain_id`	Yes	Domain UUID

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.1.0Aug 19, 2026

TDQS

A4.2/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Without annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses that the tool performs a DNS re-check, confirms a DMARC record condition, and mutates status to verified on success. The side effect (status update) is explicitly stated, which is excellent for a mutation tool with no annotation protections.

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?

Two sentences, no filler, front-loaded with the core action. Every word adds value.

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

Completeness4/5

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

Given only one parameter, no output schema, and no nested objects, the description is complete for its complexity. It explains input, action, and outcome. Could mention possible failure states or return format, but not essential for a simple verification tool.

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 coverage is 100% with a single parameter domain_id described as 'Domain UUID'. The description does not repeat this but instead explains what the tool does with the domain, which adds context beyond the schema. However, it could briefly mention that the domain_id must correspond to an existing domain.

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 verb 'Re-check', the resource 'domain's DNS', and the specific purpose: confirming the DMARC record contains the organization's reporting email and updating the status to verified on success. This distinguishes it from siblings like check_dmarc (which likely only checks without updating) and get_domain (which retrieves info without verification).

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

The description implies use after initial domain creation or when DNS changes occur, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus check_dmarc or other siblings. No guidance on prerequisites (e.g., domain must exist) or when not to use it.

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