domain-suite-mcp

by oso95

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

TypeScript

Remote

setup_dkim

Add a DKIM TXT record to your domain's DNS to authenticate outgoing emails and improve deliverability.

Instructions

Add DKIM TXT record

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "domain": "<domain>",
      "selector": "<selector>",
      "publicKey": "<publicKey>"
    },
    "name": "setup_dkim"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`domain`	Yes
`provider`	No	DNS provider (auto-detected if omitted)
`selector`	Yes	DKIM selector, e.g. "mail" or "google"
`publicKey`	Yes	DKIM public key (base64 or PEM; headers auto-stripped)
`keyType`	No	Key algorithm: rsa (default) or ed25519	rsa

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Mar 12, 2026

TDQS

B3/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are present, so the description must bear the full burden of behavioral disclosure. However, it only states 'Add DKIM TXT record', without revealing side effects, authentication requirements, or consequences of existing records.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness3/5

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

The description is a single sentence with no fluff, but it is too brief to be highly informative. While concise, it sacrifices completeness for brevity.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness2/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the tool has 5 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is incomplete. It fails to explain return values, error conditions, or the overall behavior when adding the record.

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?

With 80% schema description coverage, the baseline is 3. The description adds no additional parameter meaning beyond what the schema already provides (e.g., domain pattern, provider auto-detection, key format).

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 'Add DKIM TXT record' uses a specific verb ('Add') and resource ('DKIM TXT record'), clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like setup_dmarc, setup_mx, and setup_spf.

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

Usage Guidelines2/5

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

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, no prerequisites, and no exclusions. It does not help an agent decide between this and other DNS setup tools.

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