verify_domainChecks a domain's DNS records and marks it verified once the required records are found, confirming the sending domain is ready for email.
Check a domain's DNS records now, and mark it verified once the required ones are found.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | The domain ID (dom_…). |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The annotations already declare non-read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, and open-world. The description usefully adds that the mutation is conditional (verified only once required records are found), which the annotations do not convey. However it omits what happens on failure, whether verification can be revoked, and whether the DNS lookup is live/network-dependent (only implied by the annotation).
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?
A single well-formed sentence with the action and the outcome condition front-loaded; no filler.
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 say what the call returns or what happens when records are missing/mismatched. It covers the happy path only, leaving the agent guessing on failure and retry semantics.
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?
One parameter with 100% schema coverage, so the schema already documents the dom_… ID format. The description says nothing about the id, which is acceptable at this coverage level but adds no value.
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 pair (check DNS records, mark verified) on a specific resource (domain), which is clearly distinguishable from siblings like get_domain, add_domain, and list_domains. It stops short of naming an alternative, but the action is unambiguous.
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?
"Now" implies this is the on-demand trigger for a verification flow, but the description never says when to call it versus the passive alternatives (get_domain, list_domains) or whether it should be retried after DNS propagation. Usage must be inferred.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.