Skip to main content
Glama

BlackVeil DNS & Email Security Scanner

by com.blackveilsecurity
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

assess_spoofability

Read-onlyIdempotent

Compute a composite email spoofability risk score (0–100, higher = more spoofable) by combining SPF trust surface, DMARC enforcement, and DKIM coverage. Returns a risk level (minimal→critical), per-control sub-scores, and plain-language summary of how easy it would be to spoof email from the domain. Use when asked how easy it is to spoof email from a domain, or for a composite email spoofing risk score.

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
domainYesDomain to check (e.g., example.com)
formatNoOutput verbosity. Auto-detected if omitted.
force_refreshNoBypass cache and run a fresh check. Useful after DNS changes.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed1 schema field changed
    • addedInput schema / additionalProperties
      Added value: +false
  2. Changed1 schema field changed
    • addedInput schema / properties / force_refresh
      Added value: +{
+  "description": "Bypass cache and run a fresh check. Useful after DNS changes.",
+  "type": "boolean"
+}
  3. First observed

TDQS

A4/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, openWorld, and non-destructive. The description adds valuable behavioral context: the 0–100 score range with higher meaning more spoofable, the risk-level scale, per-control sub-scores, and a plain-language summary—information not present in annotations or an output 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?

Two tightly written sentences with no wasted words. The core computation and score direction are front-loaded, followed by return details and usage guidance.

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?

Given the tool's composite nature, no output schema, and full schema coverage for inputs, the description covers what it computes, what it returns (risk level, sub-scores, summary), and when to use it. It stops short of detailing the scoring methodology, but an agent has enough to invoke it correctly.

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 fully documents all three parameters (domain, format, force_refresh). The description adds no additional parameter meaning beyond what the schema already provides, which is the baseline case.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb ('Compute') and resource ('composite email spoofability risk score') with the exact inputs combined (SPF, DMARC, DKIM). This implicitly distinguishes it from individual check_* siblings, but does not name them explicitly.

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?

Provides a clear usage context: 'Use when asked how easy it is to spoof email from a domain, or for a composite email spoofing risk score.' It does not state when to prefer individual checks or name alternatives, leaving some inference to the agent.

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

All BlackVeil 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