TPC Hosting Free Tools

DMARC record generator

dmarc_record_generator

Read-onlyIdempotent

Builds a DMARC TXT record for _dmarc.: policy, subdomain policy, percentage, report addresses and SPF and DKIM alignment. Returns the record and findings about reporting and policy strength.

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "dmarc_record_generator"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`domain`	No	The domain the record is for, such as example.com. Optional.
`policy`	No	The p tag. Defaults to none.
`percent`	No	Share of mail the policy applies to. Defaults to 100.
`spf_alignment`	No	r for relaxed (default) or s for strict.
`dkim_alignment`	No	r for relaxed (default) or s for strict.
`failure_options`	No	The fo tag values: 0, 1, d or s.
`failure_reports`	No	Email addresses for failure (ruf) reports.
`subdomain_policy`	No	The sp tag. Defaults to the same as policy.
`aggregate_reports`	No	Email addresses for aggregate (rua) reports.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

AddedNov 11, 2026

TDQS

A3.6/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that the tool returns findings about reporting and policy strength, which is useful beyond the annotations, but says nothing about defaults applied, invalid combinations, or whether the record is ever written anywhere.

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 front-loads what is built and from which inputs, the second declares the return value. No filler or repetition.

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?

No output schema exists, and the description compensates by naming the return payload (record plus findings), which is the key missing structural information. Remaining gap is minor: the schema marks 'domain' as optional while the description frames the record as being for a domain, leaving unclear what happens when it is omitted.

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?

With 100% schema description coverage and enums on four parameters, the schema already carries the semantics (p tag, sp tag, fo values, r/s alignment). The description restates the same field list without adding format or interaction detail, so baseline 3 applies.

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 and resource ('Builds a DMARC TXT record for _dmarc.<domain>') and enumerates the policy fields it composes. This clearly separates it from dmarc_check and spf_record_generator by output type, though no sibling is named explicitly.

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?

Usage is only implied: an agent can infer it should call this when it needs a new DMARC record to publish. There is no statement of when not to use it, no pointer to dmarc_check for validating an existing record, and no note that the output is advisory rather than applied.

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

All TPC Hosting Free 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?