Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In

IntoDNS.ai DNS & Email Security Scanner

by ai.intodns
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

Analyze raw email

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.

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": {
      "rawEmail": "<rawEmail>"
    },
    "name": "analyze_raw_email"
  }
}

Input Schema

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

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observed

TDQS

A4.3/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

The annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, open-world, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds important context beyond annotations: the POST body is processed in-memory and not stored, no auth is required, and the input is capped at 500KB. It does not cover rate limits or detailed error behavior, so it is strong but not exhaustive.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose and is appropriately sized for a complex analysis tool. Some detail repeats schema information, and the first sentence is dense with a long enumeration, but there is little wasted text.

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?

For a tool with no output schema, the description does mention the 0-100 spam score, fix suggestions, and parsed verdict categories, while also covering input limits, usage routing, auth, and data handling. It still does not fully describe the returned structure, so a small gap remains.

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 rawEmail including its headers/body scope and 500,000-character limit. The description repeats that rawEmail is full headers+body with a max of 500KB but adds no additional syntax or format guidance beyond the 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?

The description states a specific verb and resource: read-only analysis of a pasted raw RFC-5322 MIME email source. It enumerates what is parsed and produced, and names a sibling alternative, so an agent can distinguish it from create_email_test and other tools.

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 says when to use this tool: debugging a specific failing email when the user can paste the raw source from their MUA. It also names the alternative create_email_test for when the user can resend the email, giving a clear selection rule.

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
One endpoint for every MCP toolRayrun runs every MCP server behind one URL and holds the credentials. Each call is decided per client, tool, and argument, then recorded.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources