Dechonet-MCP

Email Header Analysis

email_header_analysis

Read-onlyIdempotent

Parse raw email headers to reconstruct the delivery path (each Received hop in order), extract SPF/DKIM/DMARC authentication results, measure per-hop delays, and flag unencrypted (non-TLS) hops. Use this to diagnose a specific message that was already delivered — spoofing, delays, or where mail was lost. Use email_auth instead to assess a domain's sending configuration before sending. Read-only; requires no API key; rate-limited. INPUT is the full raw header block. OUTPUT is a text report containing: the ordered hop route, per-mechanism auth results (pass/fail), detected inter-hop delays, the encryption status of each hop, and whether the first sending address is on the Tor Project exit list or in a VPN provider range (information only).

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`headers`	Yes	The complete raw email header block, copied verbatim — every line from the first 'Received:'/'From:' down to the blank line before the body. Paste as-is, including folded continuation lines; do not include the message body.

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description
`kpis`	No	Key metrics as label/value pairs
`grade`	No	Letter grade (A+ to F) when the tool grades the target
`score`	No	0-100 score when the tool scores the target
`issues`	No	Detected problems, severity-rated
`status`	Yes	Overall verdict, e.g. 'good' \| 'warning' \| 'bad' \| 'info' \| 'unknown'
`actions`	No	Recommended next actions, most important first
`summary`	No	One-paragraph interpretation of the result
`receipts`	No	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.
`reportUrl`	Yes	Human-facing interactive report for this exact lookup on dechonet.com
`observation`	No	How 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.

Changed1 schema field changedOct 15, 2026

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"
+}

Changed1 schema field changedOct 15, 2026

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"
+}

First observedSep 2, 2026

TDQS

A4.4/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already cover readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, but the description adds operational facts they do not: no API key required and rate-limited. It also scopes the Tor/VPN check as 'information only', preventing an agent from over-weighting that signal; the enumerated OUTPUT list partially duplicates the 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.

Conciseness4/5

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

The diagnostic purpose and the sibling alternative come first, and each sentence is load-bearing. The trailing OUTPUT enumeration is the one redundant block, since an output schema already exists.

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 single-parameter read-only analysis tool with full schema coverage and an output schema, everything an agent needs is present: what to paste, what the report contains, the routing decision against email_auth, and the rate-limit/key situation.

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 the schema already spells out verbatim copying, folded continuation lines, and excluding the body. The description's 'INPUT is the full raw header block' restates this without adding format or edge-case guidance, 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 ('Parse raw email headers') plus the concrete outputs it derives: Received path, SPF/DKIM/DMARC results, hop delays, non-TLS hops. It also names the sibling it is not (email_auth), so an agent can route without opening either 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?

Explicit when-to-use ('diagnose a specific message that was already delivered — spoofing, delays, or where mail was lost') and an explicit alternative with its own precondition ('Use email_auth instead to assess a domain's sending configuration before sending'). The dividing condition is post-delivery forensics vs. pre-send configuration.

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

All Dechonet-MCP tools Inspect

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

Need Help?