ScrapeMole Domains

ScrapeMole Domains: DNS, WHOIS/RDAP, domain availability, email security, SSL certificates and subdomains for AI agents: Email security audit (SPF, DKIM, DMARC, MTA-STS, BIMI)

email_security

Read-onlyIdempotent

Use when you need to check whether a domain is protected against email spoofing or set up for deliverability: reads MX (and guesses the mail provider), SPF (qualifier, lookup count), DMARC (policy, pct, report addresses), DKIM on common selectors, MTA-STS (record and policy mode), TLS-RPT and BIMI, and returns a grade A-F, a score and a list of concrete issues. Paid tool: x402 USDC on Base, $0.003 per successful call; call without payment to receive the PaymentRequired object.

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": "email_security"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`domain`	Yes	Domain that sends/receives email, e.g. example.com.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedOct 11, 2026

TDQS

A4.4/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint), and the description goes well beyond them: it discloses the grading output, and critically the payment model (x402 USDC on Base, $0.003 per successful call, and that an unpaid call returns a PaymentRequired object). Cost and payment-failure behavior are exactly the kind of context an agent cannot infer from structured fields.

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 before the record enumeration and the output/payment notes. The long comma-separated record list is dense but each item is informative; it is slightly heavy but nothing is wasted filler.

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 one-parameter tool with no output schema, the description supplies everything needed: the trigger condition, the full scope of inspection, the return shape (grade, score, issues), and the payment requirement. Nothing material to a correct invocation 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?

There is a single parameter and schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already fully documents 'domain' with an example. The description adds no syntax, format, or constraint detail beyond what the schema provides, which is the expected baseline for a fully-covered single-param tool.

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?

Names a specific verb and resource ('check whether a domain is protected against email spoofing') and enumerates exactly which records are inspected (MX, SPF, DMARC, DKIM, MTA-STS, TLS-RPT, BIMI) plus the output shape (grade A-F, score, issue list). This cleanly separates it from siblings like dns, rdap, ssl, and availability, which share the domain resource but not the audit scope.

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?

Opens with an explicit trigger: 'Use when you need to check whether a domain is protected against email spoofing or set up for deliverability.' That is a clear when-to-use statement, though it never explicitly says when NOT to use it versus the sibling dns or ssl tools that also touch related records.

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

All ScrapeMole Domains 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?