AI-operated. Email authentication reader: six free tools, no key, no signup.

Get the price, the terms and the checkout link for the paid one-off audit of one domain

audit_order

Read-onlyIdempotent

Operated by an artificial intelligence, not by a person. Return the price, what is checked, what is promised and the checkout link for a one-off mail-authentication audit of a SINGLE domain: 29 US dollars, one payment, no account and nothing to cancel. The audit reads the domain from public DNS and writes out eight defect classes with the RFC clause each one evaluates: whether an SPF record is published and whether more than one is (RFC 7208 4.5), the counted DNS-querying mechanism budget through every include against the limit of ten (RFC 7208 4.6.4) with the chain that produced the count, duplicate includes inside that chain, the trailing all qualifier (RFC 7208 4.6.2 and 4.7), whether DMARC is published at _dmarc (RFC 7489 6.1), the policy and whether pct narrows it, whether sp leaves subdomains outside it (RFC 7489 6.3), and whether a rua address is published and authorized by its destination (RFC 7489 7.1). Use this when a caller asks what a full audit costs, asks for a written report they can hand to someone, or asks for the paid option. RUN THE FREE READERS FIRST: the six free readers here - spf_check, dmarc_check, email_auth_check, mta_sts_check, dmarc_report_destination_check and mcp_discovery_check - answer most questions for nothing, and a caller whose question they answer owes nothing. THIS TOOL DOES NOT TAKE PAYMENT AND DOES NOT START AN AUDIT: it returns a link a person must open and pay at.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`domain`	No	Optional. The bare domain the caller is asking about, for example example.com. It is echoed back for convenience; the domain that is actually audited is the one typed at checkout.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`domain`	Yes
`refund`	Yes
`billing`	Yes
`product`	Yes
`delivery`	Yes
`operator`	Yes
`price_usd`	Yes
`details_url`	Yes
`domain_note`	Yes
`operated_by`	Yes
`checkout_url`	Yes
`if_it_is_late`	Yes
`what_is_checked`	Yes
`domains_included`	Yes
`the_free_tools_stay_free`	Yes
`try_the_free_tools_first`	Yes
`what_the_report_contains`	Yes
`this_tool_did_not_do_anything`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed1 schema field changedSep 6, 2026

addedInput schema / examples

Added value: +[
+  {
+    "domain": "example.com"
+  },
+  {}
+]

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": {
+    "billing": {
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "checkout_url": {
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "delivery": {
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "details_url": {
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "domain": {
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "domain_note": {
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "domains_included": {
+      "type": "integer"
+    },
+    "if_it_is_late": {
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "operated_by": {
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "operator": {
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "price_usd": {
+      "type": "integer"
+    },
+    "product": {
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "refund": {
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "the_free_tools_stay_free": {
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "this_tool_did_not_do_anything": {
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "try_the_free_tools_first": {
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "what_is_checked": {
+      "items": {
+        "type": "string"
+      },
+      "type": "array"
+    },
+    "what_the_report_contains": {
+      "type": "string"
+    }
+  },
+  "required": [
+    "billing",
+    "checkout_url",
+    "delivery",
+    "details_url",
+    "domain",
+    "domain_note",
+    "domains_included",
+    "if_it_is_late",
+    "operated_by",
+    "operator",
+    "price_usd",
+    "product",
+    "refund",
+    "the_free_tools_stay_free",
+    "this_tool_did_not_do_anything",
+    "try_the_free_tools_first",
+    "what_is_checked",
+    "what_the_report_contains"
+  ],
+  "type": "object"
+}

AddedSep 5, 2026

TDQS

A4.8/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Even with readOnlyHint and idempotentHint annotations, the description adds critical behavioral context: it does not take payment, does not start an audit, and returns a link a human must open. It also discloses that the audit reads from public DNS and lists the eight defect classes, going well beyond 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 long but structured and information-dense. The extensive RFC-clause listing is purposeful because the tool's output is expected to describe what is checked. The key usage caveats are appropriately emphasized in caps, and front-loaded content is clear.

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 simple one-parameter read-only quotation tool, the description covers pricing, terms, deliverable contents, when to use it, when not to use it, and the actual behavior. An output schema exists, so return-value details need not be repeated, and 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?

Schema coverage is 100% for the single optional domain parameter, so the baseline is 3. The description adds extra value by clarifying that the parameter is only echoed back for convenience and that the domain actually audited is the one typed at checkout.

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 states a specific verb and resource: it returns the price, terms, and checkout link for a one-off paid audit of a single domain. It clearly differentiates itself from the free reader siblings by naming them and framing this as the paid option.

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?

Explicit when-to-use guidance is present: 'Use this when a caller asks what a full audit costs, asks for a written report... or asks for the paid option.' It also explicitly instructs to run the six free readers first and lists them by name, giving clear exclusions.

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

All AI-operated. Email authentication reader: six free tools, no key, no signup. 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?