Psychevus email security tools

SPF lookup counter

count_spf_lookups

Read-onlyIdempotent

Count the DNS lookups an SPF record would cost with the given include hostnames, nested includes resolved live, against the RFC 7208 limit of 10. Use it before proposing a merged SPF record.

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": {
      "includes": "<includes>"
    },
    "name": "count_spf_lookups"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`includes`	Yes	Include hostnames, e.g. ["_spf.google.com", "sendgrid.net"].

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedNov 11, 2026

TDQS

A4.4/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent and openWorld, but the description adds the crucial behavioral detail that nested includes are 'resolved live' — i.e., the count depends on real-time DNS state and can vary between calls. The RFC 7208 threshold also tells the agent how to interpret the result. It does not mention rate limits, failure handling for unresolvable hosts, or the shape of the returned count.

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?

Two sentences: the first defines the computation and its threshold, the second gives the usage trigger. Nothing is padded and the essential scope is front-loaded.

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 one parameter, no output schema and rich annotations, this is nearly complete — the agent knows what to pass, that live DNS is involved, and why the number matters. The one gap is return shape (a bare count vs. per-include breakdown), which is not covered by an output schema.

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% and the single parameter is already documented with an example, so the baseline is 3. The description still adds meaning by implying only top-level include hostnames need to be supplied because nested includes are resolved automatically — a non-obvious semantic the schema does not state.

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 ('Count') and resource ('DNS lookups an SPF record would cost'), plus the exact evaluation frame (RFC 7208 limit of 10). None of the sibling tools (header analysis, DNS propagation, signature verification) covers SPF lookup budgeting, so the agent can select it without ambiguity.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

Gives an explicit trigger: 'Use it before proposing a merged SPF record,' which tells the agent where this fits in a workflow. It stops short of stating when not to use it or which sibling to prefer for related domain checks, so it is clear context rather than full routing.

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

All Psychevus email security tools 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?