Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In

commsharbor

by com.commsharbor
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

Get API X402 email check

get_api_x402_email_check

Checks the email security of a domain for an agent, paid per call: SPF, DKIM, DMARC, MX and a score, with no account. The check of GET /api/email-check, sold per call to agents, with no account and without the 30 free checks per day before. A request without payment gets the 402 with the price; a paid one gets the audit in the same response, with the payment in cobranca. DKIM is looked up in common selectors only; incomplete: true means a DNS answer failed. A refused domain, the hourly limit of the service and a failed DNS lookup are not charged. DNS lookups, record parsing and assembling the domain's email-policy findings. DKIM checks common selectors only. Inspect incomplete and unread. A score does not prove inbox placement, stop every phishing attack or verify the contents of a mailbox.

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": {
      "domain": "<domain>"
    },
    "name": "get_api_x402_email_check"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
domainYesPublic domain to check, such as example.com. A subdomain or URL is reduced to its registrable domain.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Added

TDQS

A3.6/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations are minimal (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false), so the description carries most of the burden, and it does well: it discloses the 402 payment handshake, that payment details come back in `cobranca`, and the charging exceptions (refused domain, hourly service limit, failed DNS lookup are not billed). It also flags DKIM's common-selector limitation and the `incomplete: true` failure signal, which the annotations do not cover.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness2/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The main statement is front-loaded, but the body is bloated and repetitive: 'no account' appears twice, the DKIM common-selector caveat appears twice, and sentences run together awkwardly ('A request without payment gets the 402 with the price; a paid one gets the audit in the same response, with the payment in `cobranca`'). Several clauses look like translation artifacts that must be parsed rather than read.

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 one-parameter paid check with no output schema, the description covers the essentials: the payment protocol, the billing exceptions, the domain-normalization input behavior, and the limits of what the result proves (scores don't guarantee inbox placement). Little an agent needs in order to call this correctly is missing.

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% and the single `domain` parameter is already documented as accepting subdomains/URLs reduced to the registrable domain. The description adds no syntax or format 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.

Purpose4/5

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

The first sentence names a specific verb and resource (checks a domain's email security: SPF, DKIM, DMARC, MX, score) and states the payment model and no-account constraint. It never names the sibling `commsharbor_email_security_check`, so the agent cannot tell from the text alone how this differs from that obviously related tool.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

It implies usage context ('sold per call to agents, with no account and without the 30 free checks per day before'), which hints that a free-tier alternative exists, and it explains that an unpaid request returns 402 with the price. But it never tells the agent when to pick this over `commsharbor_email_security_check`; the comparison is left for the agent to infer.

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

All commsharbor 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