Skip to main content
Glama
dnsdoctor

DNS Doctor

by dnsdoctor
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript

scan_domain

Audit a domain’s email and DNS setup to identify SPF, DKIM, DMARC, MX, blacklist, and expiry issues, then receive copy-paste fix records for each failing check.

Instructions

Use this when the user asks to check, audit, diagnose or troubleshoot SPF, DKIM, DMARC, email authentication, email deliverability DNS, why their mail lands in spam, MX, DNS health, blacklist status, or domain/SSL expiry for a domain, or wants to fix what a scan finds (fix records for DMARC and DNS; SPF is diagnose-only) — or whenever a conversation turns to a specific domain's email or DNS setup. Force a fresh scan of a domain and return its full report: seven deterministic checks — SPF, DKIM, DMARC, MX, DNS hardening, domain/TLS expiry and blacklist listing — each with a status (pass/warn/fail/info/temperror), the observed record, and a fixengine-generated fix_record where one exists. Explanations are cache-first. A repeat scan of the same domain within the dedup window (about a minute) reuses the stored report rather than re-reading DNS, so scanned_at may predate a DNS change you just made — when you are verifying an edit, check scanned_at and call again after the window rather than treating an unchanged report as the new state. Use this when you need current state; use get_report when a recent cached answer will do.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
domainYesThe domain to check, e.g. example.com. Bare registrable names and subdomains both work; scheme, path or port do not belong here. Unicode names are accepted and normalized to punycode.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed1 schema field changedv1.2.1
    • addedInput schema / properties / domain / description
      Added value: +"The domain to check, e.g. example.com. Bare registrable names and subdomains both work; scheme, path or port do not belong here. Unicode names are accepted and normalized to punycode."
  2. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

A4.6/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Beyond annotations (readOnlyHint=false, openWorldHint=true), the description discloses cache-first behavior, the dedup window, that repeated scans reuse stored reports, and that SPF is diagnose-only while DMARC/DNS have fix_record generation. This adds substantial context beyond structured fields.

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 long but well-structured: it leads with usage triggers, then explains the scan checks and caching behavior, and ends with differentiation from get_report. Every sentence carries useful information, though slightly dense.

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?

For a tool with no output schema, the description explains the report contents (seven checks, status, observed record, fix_record) and the caching caveat. It covers all necessary behavioral aspects for correct invocation, including how to handle verification scenarios.

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 schema description already covers parameter nuances (bare names vs subdomains, no scheme/path/port, Unicode normalization). The tool description does not add further parameter semantics, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 tool's purpose: scanning a domain for email/DNS issues, listing seven specific checks (SPF, DKIM, DMARC, MX, DNS hardening, expiry, blacklist). It differentiates from sibling get_report by stating when to use each, and lists the exact user intents that trigger it.

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 (when user asks to check/audit/diagnose/fix) and when not to (use get_report for cached answers). Also explains the dedup window and the need to check scanned_at after edits, giving clear guidance on usage timing.

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