Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In

IntoDNS.ai DNS & Email Security Scanner

by ai.intodns
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

Parse DMARC aggregate report

parse_dmarc_report
Read-onlyIdempotent

Read-only parser for a DMARC aggregate (RUA) XML report (RFC 7489). Turns the raw XML that mailbox providers send into structured JSON: report metadata (org, report id, date range), the published policy (p/sp/adkim/aspf/pct), and one row per sending source with source IP, message count, evaluated disposition (none/quarantine/reject), aligned SPF/DKIM results, and pass/fail totals. Provide the report as xml (raw text) or gzipBase64 (a base64-encoded .gz attachment). Use to programmatically read DMARC reports an agent fetched from the rua@ mailbox; the report is parsed in-memory and not stored. No auth, no side effects.

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "parse_dmarc_report"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
xmlNoRaw DMARC aggregate report XML (root <feedback>), max 5 MB
gzipBase64NoBase64-encoded gzip of the report (.gz attachment); used when xml is omitted

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observed

TDQS

A4.2/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, but the description adds real value beyond them: parsing is in-memory, nothing is stored, and no auth is required. Since there is no output schema, spelling out the returned JSON shape (metadata, policy, per-source rows) is genuinely useful disclosure.

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 first clause establishes purpose and the input contract follows immediately; every sentence carries information. The long field enumeration in the middle is dense but justified given the absence of an output schema.

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 a two-input, zero-required-parameter parser with no output schema, the description covers input formats, size limits' context, side-effect profile, and the structure of the returned JSON. An agent has everything needed to invoke it correctly without opening the schema.

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 coverage is 100% and both parameters already carry descriptions including the 5 MB limit and the 'used when xml is omitted' condition. The description only restates that the report can be supplied as raw XML or base64 gzip, adding no syntax or precedence detail beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Read-only parser for a DMARC aggregate (RUA) XML report (RFC 7489)') and enumerates exactly what it produces. It is clearly distinguishable from siblings like check_dmarc or generate_dmarc, which act on DNS records rather than parsing an already-fetched report.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

Gives a concrete usage context ('read DMARC reports an agent fetched from the rua@ mailbox') and clarifies the two alternative input forms. It stops short of explicitly naming when not to use it (e.g. 'use check_dmarc to validate the published record instead'), so no exclusions are stated.

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