Psychevus email security tools

Lookalike domain radar

find_lookalike_domains

Read-onlyIdempotent

Look for registered lookalikes of a domain that could be used to impersonate it (other endings, look-alike characters like rn for m, an added word such as -billing, typos). Generates about 70 candidates, reads public DNS and registry (RDAP) data for them, and reports which exist, which can receive email, which were registered recently, and which are probably the owner's own. A lookalike outside the generated list won't be found.

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": {
      "domain": "<domain>"
    },
    "name": "find_lookalike_domains"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`domain`	Yes	A domain (example.com), website URL or email address on that domain.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedNov 11, 2026

TDQS

A4.2/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, open-world, non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real behavioral detail beyond that: ~70 generated candidates, public DNS plus RDAP registry lookups, and the four classifications it reports, including the important false-negative caveat about the fixed candidate list.

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, no filler, with the core purpose front-loaded and the coverage limitation placed last where it acts as a caveat. Every clause carries information.

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 properly explains what is returned (which exist, which can receive email, which are recent, which are likely the owner's own). It is largely complete for a single-parameter read tool; only minor operational details like latency or rate limits are absent.

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 itself explains that the input may be a domain, URL, or email address. The description adds no extra meaning about the parameter (e.g., whether subdomains or IPs are rejected), 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 ('Look for registered lookalikes of a domain'), enumerates the lookalike classes it covers (other endings, character substitutions like rn for m, added words such as -billing, typos), and says what it reports. An agent knows exactly what this tool does without opening the schema.

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?

Implies the use case (impersonation/squatting investigation) through the description of outputs, and gives an explicit scope boundary: 'A lookalike outside the generated list won't be found.' It does not state when to prefer this over a sibling or any prerequisites, but none of the listed siblings is a close substitute.

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?