Skip to main content
Glama

fix

Inspect a client's domain and apply safe repairs to fix detected issues. Use deterministic checks to identify problems, then execute fixes while pausing for human approval when replacing existing records or making judgement calls.

Instructions

Check a client's domain, then repair what can be repaired safely.

check explains what is wrong. This acts on it. The same thirteen deterministic checks run first and are still never decided by a model; what a model decides is which repair to reach for, out of a set of tools that cannot do anything else.

Anything that would replace a record somebody already published stops and waits for a person. Approve it in the control room, or call apply_mail_setup with approved=true. Creating a record that is absent is not a judgement call and does not stop.

With agents off the checks still run and their findings still stand, exactly as check degrades: only the repair needs a model.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
targetYesA client name, or a bare domain. The same resolution check uses.
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. Dates show when Glama detected each change.

  1. Addedv0.5.0

TDQS

A4.7/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Even with no annotations, the description fully discloses important safety behavior: thirteen deterministic checks run first, the model only chooses which repair to apply, replacing an existing record stops for human approval, and creating an absent record does not stop. It also states that checks still run and findings still stand when agents are off.

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 front-loaded with the main purpose, but the later wording is verbose and somewhat cryptic, with phrases like 'out of a set of tools that cannot do anything else' and 'exactly as `check` degrades'. The content is meaningful but could be expressed more directly.

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

Completeness4/5

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

The description covers the tool's behavior, safety model, approval flow, and agent-off behavior, which is sufficient for an agent to understand when and how to call it. It does not describe the output, but no output schema is present and the behavior is otherwise well specified.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters5/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Both parameters are fully described in the schema. The description adds useful context beyond the schema: `target` can be a client name or bare domain, and `dkim_selector` should only be changed if the client does not send through Resend.

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 clearly states the tool checks a client's domain and repairs what can be repaired safely. It also differentiates itself from `check` by saying check explains the problem while this tool acts on it, and from `apply_mail_setup` by noting that replacement actions require approval through that tool.

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?

The description indicates this tool is used after `check` has identified issues, since it says check explains what is wrong and this acts on it. It also explains when to involve a human and when to use `apply_mail_setup` with `approved=true`, and it describes behavior when agents are off.

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

Latest Blog Posts

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/vishalsg42/munim'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server