Skip to main content
Glama

check_propagation

Read-onlyIdempotent

Confirm a DNS update has reached worldwide resolvers by testing multiple vantage points across continents. Get a global verdict instead of trusting a single local lookup.

Instructions

Check whether a DNS change has propagated GLOBALLY: six vantage points (five owner-run probes across four continents plus this server's own resolver) each read the same name through several resolvers, and the grid plus a deterministic verdict comes back. Call it after the human publishes a record — you have ONE network vantage point, and a record that resolves for you can still be missing elsewhere. name is the exact name (www. is not stripped, _dmarc.example.com works), record_type is A|AAAA|CNAME|MX|TXT|NS, and the optional expected_value turns each cell into match or mismatch instead of agreement-only. Observation only: no record is ever composed here. A cell that did not answer is unavailable, which is NOT a negative result, and when fewer than three vantage points were reached the verdict downgrades to unknown — report vantage_reached of vantage_total rather than calling a name converged on partial coverage.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
nameYesThe exact DNS name to look up, e.g. example.com, www.example.com or _dmarc.example.com. It is used as given — a leading www. is NOT stripped and underscore labels are kept — so pass the name the record is actually published at, not the registrable domain.
record_typeNoThe record type to read at that exact name (default A). SPF and DMARC records are TXT — pass TXT with the right name rather than expecting a derived query name.A
expected_valueNoOptional value the record should now hold, e.g. '1.2.3.4' or the new DMARC record text. Supply it and each cell is reported as match or mismatch against it; omit it and the check only reports whether the vantage points agree with each other.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.

  1. Addedv1.6.0

TDQS

A4.4/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Goes well beyond readOnlyHint: says 'Observation only: no record is ever composed here', defines 'unavailable' as NOT a negative result, and explains the unknown verdict threshold (fewer than three vantage points). These are non-obvious semantics an agent must know. 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.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Dense, front-loaded purpose with all critical caveats included. Minor redundancy in 'you have ONE network vantage point... still be missing elsewhere' but it reinforces the usage timing; no wasted words overall.

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?

No output schema exists, yet the description tells an agent what comes back (grid plus deterministic verdict), how to interpret non-answers (unavailable), and how to report partial coverage (vantage_reached of vantage_total). This is sufficient for correct invocation and result interpretation.

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% and the description largely restates schema details ('www. is not stripped', 'SPF and DMARC records are TXT'). It adds the match/mismatch behavior of expected_value, but this too is in the schema, so no significant incremental meaning.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: 'Check whether a DNS change has propagated GLOBALLY' with a defined six-vantage-point methodology. It also contrasts with the agent's single network vantage point, distinguishing it from local DNS checks such as sibling check_record.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

Explicitly says 'Call it after the human publishes a record' and explains why (one vantage point can mask propagation failures). Does not name sibling alternatives or list when-not conditions, so it stops short of a 5.

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

Latest Blog Posts

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/dnsdoctor/claude-plugin'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server