domain-suite-mcp

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

setup_spf

Add SPF record for your domain using mail provider templates. Configure email authentication by selecting from Google, SendGrid, Mailgun, and more.

Instructions

Add SPF record with mail provider template

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>",
      "mailProvider": "<mailProvider>"
    },
    "name": "setup_spf"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`domain`	Yes
`provider`	No	DNS provider (auto-detected if omitted)
`mailProvider`	Yes
`customPolicy`	No	Required when mailProvider is 'custom'

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Mar 12, 2026

TDQS

B3.1/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations, the description should disclose behavioral traits. It only states it adds a record, but doesn't clarify whether it overwrites existing SPF, auto-detects provider behavior, or requires specific permissions. This is insufficient for a tool that modifies DNS.

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 a single concise sentence with no filler. It is front-loaded with the verb and key resource. While it could be more informative, it avoids unnecessary words.

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 complexity (4 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is too sparse. It lacks details on return values, error conditions, side effects (e.g., removing previous SPF), and when auto-detection might fail. An agent needs more context to use this tool safely.

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?

The input schema covers 50% of parameters with descriptions (provider, customPolicy). The tool description adds no further detail on the parameters, but the schema already covers the important ones. The description hints at the mailProvider's role via 'mail provider template', which is adequate.

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 SPF record with mail provider template' clearly states the verb (Add), resource (SPF record), and qualifier (with mail provider template). It distinguishes from siblings like setup_dkim and setup_dmarc which handle other record types.

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 (e.g., setup_dkim, create_dns_record) or when not to use it. There is no mention of prerequisites or context.

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