Skip to main content
Glama

check

Run deterministic DNS and email checks against a client or domain to identify failing configurations, with counts, a run ID, and a report file for each result.

Instructions

Run the deterministic check catalogue against one client or one domain.

Returns the failing checks with an owner-facing sentence for each, counts of what was checked and skipped, a run_id, and report_file, where the report was written. watch and report are control room URLs and appear only while it is running. DNS decides pass or fail, never a model; with agents on, a model adds the explanation and nothing else.

target may be a client name, a domain belonging to one, or a domain nobody has mentioned before, which registers it: there is no setup step. Use audit_all_clients to run the same catalogue across every client at once, and fix to repair what it finds rather than only reporting it.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
targetYesA client name, or a bare domain. A domain nobody has mentioned before is registered as a new client, because a DNS lookup is public and reveals nothing.
dkim_selectorNoThe DKIM selector to look for. Change it only if the client sends through something other than Resend.resend

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed2 schema fields changedv0.5.0
    • addedInput schema / properties / dkim_selector / description
      Added value: +"The DKIM selector to look for. Change it only if the client sends through something other than Resend."
    • addedInput schema / properties / target / description
      Added value: +"A client name, or a bare domain. A domain nobody has mentioned before is registered as a new client, because a DNS lookup is public and reveals nothing."
  2. First observedv0.4.0

TDQS

A4.7/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does so thoroughly. It discloses that DNS decides pass/fail, never a model; that with agents on a model only adds an explanation; that watch/report URLs appear only while running; that unknown domains get registered as clients; and what the return values are. This is rich behavioral context beyond the schema.

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

Conciseness5/5

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

Every sentence carries distinct information: main operation, return values, runtime-only URLs, deterministic behavior, agent-mode behavior, target flexibility, and sibling alternatives. It is front-loaded and dense with no filler.

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

Completeness5/5

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

The tool has no output schema and no annotations, yet the description explains what is returned, the side effect of registering unknown domains, how pass/fail is determined, what agent mode changes, and when to use related tools. Nothing essential for selecting and invoking the tool is missing.

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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents target and dkim_selector well. The description reinforces target semantics by explaining the three possible target forms and the no-setup implication, but it does not add meaning substantially beyond the schema, which is the baseline case for full coverage.

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 opens with a specific verb–resource pairing: 'Run the deterministic check catalogue against one client or one domain.' It clearly states what the tool does and distinguishes it from siblings by naming audit_all_clients and fix as alternatives, so an agent can tell it apart without reading their schemas.

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

Usage Guidelines5/5

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

It explicitly states when to use this tool versus alternatives: 'Use audit_all_clients to run the same catalogue across every client at once, and fix to repair what it finds rather than only reporting it.' It also clarifies that target can be a client name, an existing domain, or a previously unmentioned domain, and that there is no setup step.

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