Afriref: cited government reference data

domain_check

Read-onlyIdempotent

PAID ($0.01). Use when mail lands in spam, before an email campaign, for vendor due diligence or to confirm a Microsoft 365 tenant: graded SPF, DKIM, DMARC, MX, MTA-STS, DNSSEC, CAA, TLS and domain age, plus BIMI and blocklist info, each with the exact fix record. Non-intrusive. $0.01 per domain. Returns a 0-100 score and, per check (spf, dkim, dmarc, mx, tls = website certificate, m365, registration, mta_sts, tls_rpt, dnssec, caa, bimi, dnsbl = UCEPROTECT blocklist), a pass/warn/fail/info grade, the finding and the exact record or step that fixes it. Info checks do not move the score. Invalid, nonexistent or private-only domains are refused free. MCP: pass api_key (an Afriref key, card credit at https://afriref.dev/pricing); per-call x402/MPP payment is HTTP only, so without a key the result is an api_key_required error naming the HTTP endpoint.

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`domain`	Yes	Domain or hostname, e.g. example.com (no URL, no IP)
`api_key`	No	API key (bypasses x402; metered for invoicing)

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description
`fix`	No
`error`	No	Present on a free refusal or error; no charge
`notes`	No
`score`	No
`checks`	No
`domain`	No
`letter`	No
`summary`	No
`diagnosis`	No
`no_charge`	No
`price_usd`	No
`checked_at`	No
`how_to_pay`	No
`explanation`	No
`http_endpoint`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed17 schema fields changedOct 20, 2026

changedOutput schema / description

Previous value: -"Finished-job dossier: verdict or summary, line items, evidence with official sources. On 402 the x402 PaymentRequired object (isError)"New value: +"Domain and email security report: 0-100 score, letter, summary and one entry per check with grade, finding and fix. A refusal (invalid or unknown domain, broken DNS, api_key_required) is isError with error and explanation; nothing is charged"

removedOutput schema / properties / bind_series
```
Removed value: -{}
```
addedOutput schema / properties / checked_at
```
Added value: +{
+  "type": "string"
+}
```

addedOutput schema / properties / checks

Added value: +{
+  "items": {
+    "additionalProperties": {},
+    "properties": {
+      "check": {
+        "type": "string"
+      },
+      "finding": {
+        "type": "string"
+      },
+      "fix": {
+        "type": [
+          "string",
+          "null"
+        ]
+      },
+      "grade": {
+        "type": "string"
+      }
+    },
+    "type": "object"
+  },
+  "type": "array"
+}

addedOutput schema / properties / diagnosis
```
Added value: +{}
```
removedOutput schema / properties / disclaimer
```
Removed value: -{}
```
addedOutput schema / properties / domain
```
Added value: +{
+  "type": "string"
+}
```

removedOutput schema / properties / evidence

Removed value: -{
-  "items": {},
-  "type": "array"
-}

addedOutput schema / properties / fix

Added value: +{
+  "type": [
+    "string",
+    "null"
+  ]
+}

removedOutput schema / properties / job

Removed value: -{
-  "type": "string"
-}

addedOutput schema / properties / letter
```
Added value: +{
+  "type": "string"
+}
```

addedOutput schema / properties / notes

Added value: +{
+  "items": {
+    "type": "string"
+  },
+  "type": "array"
+}

removedOutput schema / properties / payment_required

Removed value: -{
-  "description": "true when the call needs payment; how_to_pay explains x402 or card",
-  "type": "boolean"
-}

addedOutput schema / properties / score
```
Added value: +{
+  "type": "number"
+}
```

removedOutput schema / properties / status

Removed value: -{
-  "type": "string"
-}

addedOutput schema / properties / summary
```
Added value: +{
+  "type": "string"
+}
```
removedOutput schema / properties / x_next_bind
```
Removed value: -{}
```

AddedOct 19, 2026

TDQS

A4.6/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive/openWorld, and the description still adds substantial behavioral context: it is PAID at $0.01 per domain, non-intrusive, refuses invalid/nonexistent/private-only domains for free, and the MCP path requires an api_key (x402 payment is HTTP-only, otherwise an api_key_required error names the HTTP endpoint). That is exactly the auth/cost/error disclosure structured fields cannot carry.

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?

Dense but front-loaded — cost, then use cases, then the check inventory, then the return shape, then payment mechanics. Minor redundancy: the $0.01 price is stated twice ('PAID ($0.01)' and '$0.01 per domain'), and the long parenthetical listing every check code is heavy.

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?

For a paid external-scan tool this is complete: cost, auth path, refusal behavior, return shape (0-100 score plus per-check pass/warn/fail/info grades with fix records) and the note that info checks don't move the score. An output schema exists, yet the description still frames the result usefully.

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%, so baseline is 3, but the description adds real meaning: api_key is an Afriref key purchasable at https://afriref.dev/pricing, it bypasses x402, is metered for invoicing, and its absence produces a specific api_key_required error. domain format detail (no URL, no IP) is left to the schema.

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?

The description names a specific verb+resource — a domain/email security check that grades SPF, DKIM, DMARC, MX, MTA-STS, DNSSEC, CAA, TLS, domain age, BIMI and blocklists. It is unmistakably distinct from the sibling domain_age, which covers only one of the many signals enumerated here.

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?

Explicit trigger scenarios are given: 'when mail lands in spam, before an email campaign, for vendor due diligence or to confirm a Microsoft 365 tenant.' That is strong when-to-use guidance, but it offers no when-not conditions and never references the domain_age sibling as an alternative.

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

All Afriref: cited government reference data 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?