Skip to main content
Glama

MailX Email Deliverability

by com.themailx
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

SPF Generator

spf_generate
Read-onlyIdempotent

Use this when the user needs a new SPF record for their email provider. Returns a TXT record ready to publish, or explains what to set up instead when the provider does not need a root SPF include. mailX does not publish it.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
providerYesEmail provider identifier. Google Workspace or Gmail = google. Microsoft 365, Office 365 or Outlook = microsoft. Amazon SES = amazon-ses. Common provider names are also accepted.
domain_nameYesThe domain to generate an SPF record for, e.g. example.com
hard_fail_booleanYesIf true, uses strict -all policy (reject unauthorized senders). If false, uses soft ~all (mark but deliver).

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed2 schema fields changed
    • changedInput schema / properties / provider / description
      Previous value: -"The mail provider identifier, e.g. google, mailgun, sendgrid, postmark, amazon-ses"New value: +"Email provider identifier. Google Workspace or Gmail = google. Microsoft 365, Office 365 or Outlook = microsoft. Amazon SES = amazon-ses. Common provider names are also accepted."
    • addedInput schema / properties / provider / enum
      Added value: +[
+  "activecampaign",
+  "amazon-ses",
+  "aweber",
+  "bluehost",
+  "brevo",
+  "campaign-monitor",
+  "constant-contact",
+  "elastic-email",
+  "fastmail",
+  "freshdesk",
+  "gandi",
+  "getresponse",
+  "godaddy",
+  "google",
+  "hostgator",
+  "hostinger",
+  "hubspot",
+  "icloud",
+  "infomaniak",
+  "intercom",
+  "ionos",
+  "ionos-eu",
+  "kit",
+  "klaviyo",
+  "mailbox-org",
+  "mailchimp",
+  "mailersend",
+  "mailgun",
+  "mailjet",
+  "mandrill",
+  "microsoft",
+  "migadu",
+  "moosend",
+  "namecheap",
+  "ovh",
+  "postmark",
+  "protonmail",
+  "purelymail",
+  "rackspace",
+  "resend",
+  "salesforce",
+  "sendgrid",
+  "smtp2go",
+  "sparkpost",
+  "titan",
+  "yandex",
+  "zendesk",
+  "zeptomail",
+  "zoho"
+]
  2. First observed

TDQS

A4/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and destructiveHint=false. The description adds genuinely useful context beyond them: it returns a TXT record, it may instead return setup guidance when a root include isn't needed, and mailX does not publish the record – clarifying there are no DNS side effects.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the usage trigger, followed by output behavior and the non-publishing caveat. Tight overall; the phrase 'Use this when the user needs' is slightly boilerplate but not wasteful.

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 no output schema, the description carries responsibility for describing returns and does so ('TXT record ready to publish' or alternative setup guidance). Combined with full schema coverage and safety annotations, nothing an agent needs to call this correctly is missing.

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 description coverage is 100%, including a well-annotated enum for provider and an explanation of hard_fail's -all vs ~all behavior, so the schema carries the parameter semantics. The description adds no parameter-level detail, making the baseline 3 correct.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb+resource ('generate an SPF record') and scopes it to a new record for the user's email provider. It contrasts implicitly with spf_check (existing record validation) but never names the sibling, so differentiation is left to inference.

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?

The opening clause gives a clear trigger condition ('when the user needs a new SPF record'), which is enough to route correctly against spf_check/dmarc_generate. It does not state when-not-to-use it or name the alternative tool explicitly.

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

All MailX Email Deliverability toolsInspect
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