Skip to main content
Glama

IntoDNS.ai DNS & Email Security Scanner

by ai.intodns

analyze_raw_email

Read-onlyIdempotent

Read-only analysis of a pasted raw RFC-5322 MIME email source. Parses Authentication-Results, Received chain, SPF/DKIM/DMARC/ARC verdicts, sender IP reputation/blacklist status, content-side spam triggers (suspicious URLs, misleading From, content/HTML imbalance), and produces a 0-100 spam score plus AI-assisted fix suggestions. rawEmail is full headers+body, max 500KB. Use to debug a specific failing email when the user can paste the raw source from their MUA; use create_email_test instead when the user can resend it. POST body is processed in-memory and not stored. No auth.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
rawEmailYesRaw email source including headers and body, max 500,000 characters

TDQS

A4.7/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already mark read-only/idempotent/non-destructive; description reinforces with 'Read-only analysis' and adds key operational facts: in-memory processing, no storage, no auth. This exceeds minimal disclosure.

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?

Dense, front-loaded description: purpose first, output summary, usage rule, then operational constraints. No wasted words; 5 sentences carry high value.

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?

For an analysis tool with no output schema, the description enumerates the major parsed categories and the final outputs (0-100 score, fix suggestions), plus one-param usage. It covers the tool's behavioral contract sufficiently.

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?

Only one parameter, and the input schema already fully describes rawEmail's content and max length. Description merely restates max 500KB, so it adds little beyond schema.

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?

Description states 'Read-only analysis of a pasted raw RFC-5322 MIME email source' with a specific verb and resource, and lists concrete outputs. It differentiates from create_email_test in the same tool family.

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?

Explicitly states when to use: to debug a specific failing email when user can paste raw source; names create_email_test as alternative when resending is possible. This is ideal usage guidance.

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

All IntoDNS.ai DNS & Email Security Scanner toolsInspect
Try in Browser
RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

A4.1/5.0
Disambiguation5/5

Every tool has a clearly distinct purpose, and cross-references between tools (e.g., check_spf vs check_email_security vs check_sender_requirements) explicitly state when to use each one. Overlapping behaviors are carefully delineated (e.g., scan_domain vs get_everything_report vs start_deep_scan) with latency and depth tradeoffs explained. No two tools appear to do the same thing.

Naming Consistency4/5

Nearly all tool names follow a verb_noun snake_case pattern (check_*, generate_*, get_*, create_*, scan_*), with precise verbs matching each action. Minor deviations include 'nis2_quickscan' (no verb) and a few compound names like 'whois_lookup', but these are isolated. The variety of verbs is semantically justified by the broad domain, so the naming is predictable and readable.

Tool Count2/5

At 45 tools, this is far beyond the 16-25 'heavy' range and nearly double the 25 threshold. While the server covers a wide range of DNS, email, and web checks, a 45-tool surface is likely to overwhelm agents and increase selection errors. Many tools could be consolidated (e.g., individual check_* tools into one combined check) without sacrificing clarity.

Completeness5/5

The tool set meticulously covers the domain: DNS (SPF, DKIM, DMARC, DNSSEC, propagation, whois), email security (blacklist, FCrDNS, MTA-STS, SMTP TLS, TLSA, BIMI, raw email analysis, test sessions), web security (headers, CSP, HTTP/3), reporting (PDF, snapshots, badges), and compliance (NIS2, Internet.nl deep scans). There are no obvious gaps for the stated purpose of DNS & email security scanning; every check has a corresponding generator or explainer.

Resources