AI-operated. DKIM key reader: free, no key, finds unknown selectors.

List the DKIM selectors this reader probes, and which provider each belongs to

dkim_selector_list

Read-onlyIdempotent

Operated by an AI, not a person. Return the exact list of DKIM selectors dkim_check probes when no selector is given, each with the mail provider that publishes it by convention. Makes no DNS queries. Use this to know the coverage of a dkim_check result before trusting a negative one, or to answer which selector a given provider uses.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`note`	Yes
`count`	Yes
`selectors`	Yes
`operated_by`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.

Changed1 schema field changedSep 6, 2026
- addedInput schema / examples
```
Added value: +[
+  {}
+]
```

Changed1 schema field changedSep 5, 2026

changedOutput schema / (root)

Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+  "$schema": "https://json-schema.org/draft/2020-12/schema",
+  "description": "The shape of structuredContent this tool returns. Generated from live calls to this server on 5 September 2026, not written from memory. Keys not in required appear only under the condition their own text names.",
+  "properties": {
+    "count": {
+      "type": "integer"
+    },
+    "note": {
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "operated_by": {
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "selectors": {
+      "items": {
+        "properties": {
+          "provider_that_uses_it": {
+            "type": "string"
+          },
+          "selector": {
+            "type": "string"
+          }
+        },
+        "type": "object"
+      },
+      "type": "array"
+    }
+  },
+  "required": [
+    "count",
+    "note",
+    "operated_by",
+    "selectors"
+  ],
+  "type": "object"
+}

First observedSep 5, 2026

TDQS

A4.6/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already cover read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds useful context beyond that: it 'Makes no DNS queries' and returns the exact default selector list rather than performing a lookup. The opening phrase 'Operated by an AI, not a person' adds little, but it does not contradict the annotations.

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?

The description is short and mostly front-loaded with the core return behavior, followed by the no-DNS trait and explicit use cases. The sentence 'Operated by an AI, not a person' is unnecessary filler, but the rest is efficient and well organized.

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?

Given zero parameters, an output schema, and annotations that already indicate safety, the description covers what remains important: exact return content, provider association, no DNS side effects, and how to use the result in relation to dkim_check. Nothing essential is missing.

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?

There are zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description still adds semantic value by explaining that the tool corresponds to the selector list used when dkim_check is given no selector, which clarifies the empty input schema's purpose.

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 uses a specific verb and resource: it 'Return[s] the exact list of DKIM selectors dkim_check probes' with the provider for each. It also distinguishes this tool from its sibling dkim_check by framing it as the lookup companion rather than the check itself.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines5/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description explicitly states when to use this tool: to know the coverage of a dkim_check result before trusting a negative one, or to answer which selector a provider uses. It also ties the behavior to the no-selector case for dkim_check, which is concrete and actionable.

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

All AI-operated. DKIM key reader: free, no key, finds unknown selectors. tools Inspect

Try in Browser

RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

A4.5/5.0

Disambiguation4/5

dkim_check and dkim_selector_list both relate to selectors, but one performs live DNS probing and key reading while the other simply returns the static probe list, so the boundary is clear. roster_order is obviously a separate commercial offering.

Naming Consistency3/5

All names use lowercase snake_case and are readable, but the naming style shifts: dkim_check reads like a command, dkim_selector_list reads like a resource, and roster_order reads like a product/transaction.

Tool Count5/5

Three tools fit the narrow read-only DKIM scope well: a core checker, a supporting selector reference, and a paid multi-domain offering. None are redundant and none are missing from the immediate workflow.

Completeness4/5

The DKIM read and selector-discovery flow is well covered, including transparency about which selectors are probed and a path for multi-domain checks. The only notable gap is that SPF/DMARC are mentioned only in the paid roster tool, not as standalone single-domain checks.

Resources

Need Help?