ScorpTech x402 API

Email Parse

email_parse

Read-onlyIdempotent

Parse a raw email (.eml / RFC 5322 + MIME) for triage: decoded headers (RFC 2047), addresses, Received hop chain with relays, IPs, timestamps and delays, originating IP, Authentication-Results (SPF / DKIM / DMARC / ARC), DKIM-Signature domains and selectors, MIME part tree, attachments (name, type, size, SHA-256, risky extensions), text body and links (with anchor-text vs href domain mismatch). Adds phishing / spoofing indicators (From vs Return-Path / Reply-To misalignment, display-name spoofing, brand impersonation, auth failures, urgency language) and a 0-100 risk score. Price: $0.003 USDC per successful call (x402, Solana). Same tool over HTTPS: POST https://scorptech.it.com/api/x402/v1/email-parse

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": {
      "raw": "<raw>"
    },
    "name": "email_parse"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`raw`	Yes	Full raw message source including headers
`maxBodyChars`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

AddedOct 23, 2026

TDQS

A4.1/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already cover read-only, idempotent, open-world and non-destructive behavior, and the description adds meaningful operational context: payment is $0.003 USDC per successful call via x402/Solana, and an alternate HTTPS endpoint is provided. It also discloses the rich return contents, including auth results, attachment hashes, phishing indicators and a 0-100 risk score.

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 purpose is front-loaded, and the pricing/HTTPS sentence is relevant. The first sentence is a dense, semicolon-separated enumeration that would scan better as structured bullets, but it does not contain obvious filler.

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?

With no output schema, the description does a strong job enumerating return categories such as decoded headers, Received hops, authentication results, attachments, links, phishing indicators and risk score. It still omits parameter behavior for maxBodyChars and does not address error or payment-failure behavior.

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?

The schema describes "raw" as the full message source, and the description reinforces the RFC 5322 + MIME format. However, "maxBodyChars" is undocumented in both schema prose and the description, leaving unclear what is truncated and whether link or body extraction is affected.

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 states a specific verb and resource: "Parse a raw email (.eml / RFC 5322 + MIME) for triage," then enumerates the exact parsing domains. This makes it clearly the comprehensive raw-email parser rather than an auth-only or validation sibling, even without naming an alternative.

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?

The phrase "for triage" and the output list imply when to use it, but there is no explicit guidance on when to choose it over email_auth, email_validate, phishing_score, or similar siblings. It also does not state prerequisites or when not to use it.

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

All ScorpTech x402 API tools Inspect

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

Need Help?