Skip to main content
Glama

generate_dmarc_record

Read-onlyIdempotent

Creates a DMARC record for domains without one using a validating engine to build and re-check the TXT record. Choose none, quarantine, or reject; optional RUA, subdomain policy, strict alignment.

Instructions

Use this when the user asks to create, generate or write a DMARC record for a domain that has none. Build a DMARC record from scratch for a domain that has none, using a validating engine — never compose one yourself. policy is none|quarantine|reject; optional rua_email (aggregate-report destination), subdomain_policy, and strict_alignment. Every generated record carries np=reject — the DMARCbis tag for non-existent subdomains, which can have no legitimate aligned mail — independently of the p= you choose. The generated record is re-validated before it is returned. Present it verbatim; a human must approve before publishing.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
policyYesThe requested p= policy: 'none' monitors only, 'quarantine' sends failing mail to spam, 'reject' refuses it outright. Start at 'none' unless the domain's aggregate reports already justify enforcement.
rua_emailNoMailbox to receive DMARC aggregate (RUA) reports, as a plain address like dmarc@example.com. Strongly recommended: without it nobody can see who sends as the domain.
strict_alignmentNoSet true to emit strict alignment (aspf=s adkim=s), requiring an exact domain match instead of the organizational-domain match. Leave false unless you know every sender aligns strictly.
subdomain_policyNoOptional sp= policy for subdomains when it should differ from the main p= policy. Omit to let subdomains inherit p=.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed4 schema fields changedv1.2.1
    • addedInput schema / properties / policy / description
      Added value: +"The requested p= policy: 'none' monitors only, 'quarantine' sends failing mail to spam, 'reject' refuses it outright. Start at 'none' unless the domain's aggregate reports already justify enforcement."
    • addedInput schema / properties / rua_email / description
      Added value: +"Mailbox to receive DMARC aggregate (RUA) reports, as a plain address like dmarc@example.com. Strongly recommended: without it nobody can see who sends as the domain."
    • addedInput schema / properties / strict_alignment / description
      Added value: +"Set true to emit strict alignment (aspf=s adkim=s), requiring an exact domain match instead of the organizational-domain match. Leave false unless you know every sender aligns strictly."
    • addedInput schema / properties / subdomain_policy / description
      Added value: +"Optional sp= policy for subdomains when it should differ from the main p= policy. Omit to let subdomains inherit p=."
  2. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

A4.4/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Discloses key behaviors beyond annotations: uses a validating engine, always adds np=reject, re-validates before returning, requires verbatim presentation, and mandates human approval before publishing. This adds substantial context that the readOnlyHint and idempotentHint annotations do not provide.

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 information-dense and front-loaded with the usage trigger. The phrase 'for a domain that has none' appears twice and could be trimmed, but overall every sentence contributes meaningful guidance.

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 conveys what the tool returns ('the generated record') and exactly what the agent should do with it ('present it verbatim'). Covers generation process, validation, special tag behavior, and the required human approval step, making the tool fully actionable.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all parameters thoroughly. The description restates the parameter list and adds the useful fact about np=reject, but this relates to output behavior rather than parameter meaning. It does not materially enhance the schema's parameter descriptions.

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 clearly that the tool creates/generates a DMARC record from scratch for a domain that has none, with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from validation and upgrade siblings by focusing on domains with no existing DMARC 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 to use when the user asks to create, generate, or write a DMARC record for a domain with none, which is a clear trigger condition. It does not explicitly name alternative tools, but the 'domain that has none' qualifier implies when not to use it and warns 'never compose one yourself.'

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