Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In

Dechonet-MCP

by com.dechonet
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

Email Authentication Check

email_auth
Read-onlyIdempotent

Assess a domain's email authentication and deliverability posture: MX records, SPF, DMARC, DKIM (probes 15 common selectors), BIMI, MTA-STS, TLS-RPT, and DANE, plus a blacklist check across all MX hosts, returning a 0-100 deliverability score. Use this for a full sending/receiving readiness review of a domain. Use dns_lookup instead if you only need raw TXT/MX records, or email_header_analysis to diagnose a specific message that was already sent. Read-only; requires no API key; rate-limited. Returns a text report: score, per-mechanism KPIs, issues, and actions.

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
domainYesEmail domain to assess — the part after '@' (e.g., 'example.com'). An IP address is also accepted for reverse/PTR-based checks.

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
kpisNoKey metrics as label/value pairs
gradeNoLetter grade (A+ to F) when the tool grades the target
scoreNo0-100 score when the tool scores the target
issuesNoDetected problems, severity-rated
statusYesOverall verdict, e.g. 'good' | 'warning' | 'bad' | 'info' | 'unknown'
actionsNoRecommended next actions, most important first
summaryNoOne-paragraph interpretation of the result
receiptsNoSigned observation receipts behind this result, one per lookup: when, from where and under which rules version DechoNet observed it. Each url shows the record and checks its Ed25519 signature.
reportUrlYesHuman-facing interactive report for this exact lookup on dechonet.com
observationNoHow much was actually observed and when. A partial observation means some checks did not answer: missing parts are not verified, never clean.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed1 schema field changed
    • addedOutput schema / properties / receipts
      Added value: +{
+  "description": "Signed observation receipts behind this result, one per lookup: when, from where and under which rules version DechoNet observed it. Each url shows the record and checks its Ed25519 signature.",
+  "items": {
+    "properties": {
+      "id": {
+        "type": "string"
+      },
+      "tool": {
+        "type": "string"
+      },
+      "url": {
+        "type": "string"
+      }
+    },
+    "required": [
+      "tool",
+      "id",
+      "url"
+    ],
+    "type": "object"
+  },
+  "type": "array"
+}
  2. Changed1 schema field changed
    • addedOutput schema / properties / observation
      Added value: +{
+  "description": "How much was actually observed and when. A partial observation means some checks did not answer: missing parts are not verified, never clean.",
+  "properties": {
+    "ageMinutes": {
+      "type": [
+        "number",
+        "null"
+      ]
+    },
+    "cached": {
+      "type": "boolean"
+    },
+    "observedAt": {
+      "type": [
+        "string",
+        "null"
+      ]
+    },
+    "state": {
+      "enum": [
+        "complete",
+        "partial",
+        "unknown"
+      ],
+      "type": "string"
+    }
+  },
+  "type": "object"
+}
  3. First observed

TDQS

A4.4/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description still adds value beyond them: it discloses the depth of probing (15 DKIM selectors, blacklist check across all MX hosts), that no API key is required, and that the tool is rate-limited — though the rate limit itself is unquantified.

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?

Four sentences, front-loaded with what is checked before moving to routing guidance and operational notes; there is little redundancy. It is dense and informational rather than padded, though the mechanism list is long enough that the sentence carries heavy load.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be specified, yet the description still summarizes the shape of the report (score, per-mechanism KPIs, issues, actions). Combined with the enumerated checks and sibling routing, an agent has everything needed to call 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% and the single parameter's schema text already explains the expected value, including that an IP address is accepted for PTR-based checks. The description adds no further syntax or format guidance for the domain argument, 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?

The description names a specific verb (assess) and resource (domain's email authentication/deliverability posture) and enumerates the concrete mechanisms checked (MX, SPF, DMARC, DKIM, BIMI, MTA-STS, TLS-RPT, DANE, blacklists). It explicitly distinguishes itself from the closest siblings, dns_lookup and email_header_analysis, so an agent can select it without opening any schema.

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 states the primary use case ('full sending/receiving readiness review of a domain') and then gives explicit alternatives with the conditions that select them: dns_lookup for raw TXT/MX records only, email_header_analysis for diagnosing an already-sent message. When-to-use and when-not-to-use are both covered.

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

All Dechonet-MCP toolsInspect
Try in Browser
Shareable, User-Owned Context BackendPeople, applications, and agents read, write, and coordinate together in one context lake. Reach it over MCP, a CLI, a Python SDK, or REST.fulcradynamics.comAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources