Skip to main content
Glama

Dechonet-MCP

by com.dechonet

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

TableJSON 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

TableJSON 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
reportUrlYesHuman-facing interactive report for this exact lookup on dechonet.com

TDQS

A4.9/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already mark it read-only and idempotent, and the description adds meaningful behavior: rate-limited, no API key required, probes 15 DKIM selectors, checks blacklists across all MX hosts, and returns a text report with score/KPIs/issues/actions. No contradiction with annotations.

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?

The description is dense but well-organized: mechanism list first, then use cases, then constraints and return format. Every sentence earns its place, and the most decision-relevant info is front-loaded.

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?

With only one parameter, output schema present, and annotations covering safety, the description provides everything needed: tool scope, alternatives, rate-limit caveat, authentication requirements, and return content. Nothing important is missing.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by clarifying domain means the part after '@' and explicitly stating an IP address is accepted for reverse/PTR checks — extra semantics 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 names a specific action ('Assess a domain's email authentication...'), lists the exact mechanisms checked, and returns a clear 0-100 deliverability score. It also distinguishes itself from dns_lookup and email_header_analysis, so an agent can confidently select it.

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?

Explicitly states when to use this tool ('full sending/receiving readiness review') and names alternatives with conditions: use dns_lookup for raw records and email_header_analysis for a specific sent message. This is model guidance.

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
RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

A4.7/5.0
Disambiguation5/5

Each tool targets a clearly distinct diagnostic concern: DNS, SSL, HTTP headers, email auth, email headers, ASN, reverse DNS, WHOIS, ports, subnet math, and the caller IP. The overlapping tools (ssl_check vs http_security vs security_scan) are explicitly differentiated by scope and depth, with cross-references that remove ambiguity.

Naming Consistency5/5

All tool names use lowercase snake_case and follow a consistent noun_verb or noun_noun pattern built around the resource being inspected, such as dns_lookup, ssl_check, port_scan, and whois_lookup. There are no mixed conventions like camelCase or inconsistent verb styles.

Tool Count5/5

13 tools is a well-scoped size for a network/domain/security diagnostic server. Each tool covers a distinct diagnostic capability, and the count is substantial enough to feel complete without becoming bloated or redundant.

Completeness5/5

The tool surface provides broad read-only coverage of domain and network diagnostics: DNS, propagation, WHOIS, ASN, reverse DNS, SSL, HTTP security, email authentication, raw email headers, port scanning, subnet calculation, and an aggregate security scan. There are no obvious dead ends for the stated purpose of domain/network/security investigation.

Resources