mail_domain_verifyVerify sender domains after adding DNS records by checking DKIM and domain status, so you can confirm email sending readiness.
Khi đã thêm DNS, kiểm DKIM và trạng thái domain. / Use after adding DNS records to verify the sender domain.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| domain_id | Yes | ||
| idempotency_key | No | Giữ cùng key khi thử lại cùng yêu cầu trong 24 giờ. / Reuse for retries. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.11.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=false, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds that it checks DKIM and domain status, but does not disclose whether it mutates verification state, whether DNS propagation is required, whether results are asynchronous, or what auth/rate constraints apply.
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?
Very short and front-loaded with the prerequisite and action. It duplicates the same meaning in Vietnamese and English, which is slightly redundant but not harmful.
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?
There is no output schema, so the description should clarify what verification returns or what to do after calling it; that is absent. It also leaves the required domain_id undocumented and does not cover asynchronous status, expected DNS records, or failure behavior, making it incomplete for reliable agent invocation.
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 description coverage is 50%: idempotency_key is documented in the schema, but the required domain_id parameter has no schema description. The description mentions 'sender domain' generally but adds no format, source, or retry/idempotency semantics for the parameters.
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?
States a specific verb (verify) and resource (sender domain DNS/DKIM/status), with temporal context (after adding DNS records). It is clear enough to distinguish from mail_domain_add, but it does not explicitly differentiate itself from nearby verification or listing siblings such as cloud_domain_verify_status or mail_domains_list.
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?
Gives a real prerequisite: use after adding DNS records. It does not name alternatives, exclusions, or failure-handling paths, but the context for when to call it is clear.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.