Validate a domain's SPF, DKIM, and DMARC records, probe multiple DKIM selectors, and return an email security grade from A to F.
Validate SPF, DKIM, and DMARC records for a domain. Probes multiple DKIM selectors and returns an email security grade A-F.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| domain | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.1.61Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does add real behavioral detail beyond the schema: it probes multiple DKIM selectors internally and returns a normalized A-F grade, which tells the agent the output shape. It does not state read-only/non-destructive nature, cost, or rate limits, leaving gaps for an unannotated tool.
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?
Two tight sentences, zero waste, and the core action is front-loaded ahead of the secondary detail about selector probing and the grade output.
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 single-parameter validation tool with no output schema, the description covers what it inspects and roughly what comes back (A-F grade). Missing sibling disambiguation and parameter format details keep it from being fully complete.
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?
Schema coverage is 0% and the single "domain" parameter has no schema description. The description's phrase "for a domain" implies the parameter's meaning adequately, but adds no syntax, format, or example (e.g., whether a URL or bare hostname is accepted), so it only partly compensates.
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 ("Validate") with concrete resources (SPF, DKIM, DMARC records) and names the input unit (a domain). It's immediately clear what the tool does, though it offers no differentiation from siblings like netintel_email_intel, netintel_email_report, or netintel_email_verify.
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?
There is no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives. In a toolset with three other email-related tools plus netintel_dns_lookup and netintel_dnssec_validate, the agent is left to guess which one to pick.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.