TPC Hosting Free Tools

SPF record generator

spf_record_generator

Read-onlyIdempotent

Builds an SPF TXT record from a mail setup: sending IPs, mail providers such as Google or Microsoft, the a and mx mechanisms and soft or hard fail. Returns the record, a DNS lookup estimate and findings.

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": "spf_record_generator"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`a`	No	Allow the domain's own A record to send mail.
`mx`	No	Allow the domain's MX hosts to send mail.
`all`	No	~ for soft fail (default) or - for hard fail.
`ip4`	No	IPv4 addresses or CIDR ranges that send mail, such as 203.0.113.5 or 198.51.100.0/24.
`ip6`	No	IPv6 addresses or CIDR ranges that send mail.
`domain`	No	The domain the record is for, such as example.com. Optional.
`includes`	No	Other domains to include, such as spf.mailjet.com.
`providers`	No	Mail providers to include. One of: google, microsoft, mailjet, sendgrid, mailgun, ses, zoho, brevo, mailchimp.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

AddedNov 11, 2026

TDQS

A3.7/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world), and the description adds genuine context on top: it returns the record plus a DNS lookup estimate and findings. The lookup estimate is a meaningful SPF-specific behavioral detail, though 'findings' stays undefined.

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 compact sentences with the purpose front-loaded and the return shape trailing. No filler, though the second sentence's list of outputs is slightly terse where a word more on 'findings' would have been worth the space.

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?

For an eight-parameter, fully-optional, fully-documented generator with no output schema, the description is nearly sufficient: it names the inputs and the return payload. What is missing is what 'findings' contains and how defaults behave when no parameters are supplied.

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%, so every one of the eight parameters is already documented, and the description only restates the headline ones (IPs, providers, a/mx, soft/hard fail). It adds no syntax, precedence, or default guidance beyond the schema, 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 artifact ('Builds an SPF TXT record') and enumerates the inputs it composes from. It reads clearly as a generator as opposed to the sibling spf_check, though the description never names that alternative explicitly, so the differentiation is left implicit.

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 implied by 'from a mail setup' — an agent can infer it is for constructing a new record rather than validating an existing one. There is no explicit when-to-use / when-not-to-use statement and no mention of pairing it with spf_check or spf validation.

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?