SiteCheck Web Intel

Reads the DKIM public key published

security_dkim_key_checker

Read-only

Reads the DKIM public key published at ._domainkey.: key type, whether it is revoked (empty p=), decoded key size in bytes and a strength hint (about 1024-bit vs 2048-bit RSA), and basic syntax (v=DKIM1). Follows one CNAME, which large providers use. Does not check a signed message. Related tools on this server, for a different need: security_dmarc_spf_dkim when you need email authentication DNS records for a domain: DMARC. Price: $0.002 in USDC per successful call, paid with x402 (Base, Solana or Arc); failed calls are not charged.

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>",
      "selector": "<selector>"
    },
    "name": "security_dkim_key_checker"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`domain`	Yes	Sending domain such as mailchimp.com (required)
`selector`	Yes	DKIM selector such as k1 or google (required)

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`found`	No
`domain`	No
`source`	No
`keyType`	No
`revoked`	No
`version`	No
`keyBytes`	No
`selector`	No
`strength`	No
`syntaxOk`	No
`checkedAt`	No
`cnameTarget`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedOct 23, 2026

TDQS

A4.8/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Annotations only declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint; the description adds that it follows one CNAME (relevant because large providers use CNAME-based DKIM), what constitutes a revoked key, and the cost model ($0.002 USDC per successful call via x402, failures not charged). Pricing and CNAME-following are exactly the kind of behavior an agent needs before calling and cannot get from 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?

Front-loaded with the core behavior and output facts, then exclusions, then pricing. Slightly cluttered by the trailing 'Related tools... for a domain: DMARC.' fragment, which is grammatically truncated and reads as an afterthought, but no sentence is truly redundant.

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 read-only lookup with an output schema, the description covers what is fetched, how the lookup resolves (one CNAME hop), what 'revoked' means, what is explicitly out of scope, the cost, and the sibling alternative. Nothing an agent needs to call it correctly 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%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds value by showing how the two parameters compose into the DNS query name (<selector>._domainkey.<domain>), which the schema's per-field descriptions never state. It does not add anything about domain/selector validation or edge cases beyond that.

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?

States a specific verb (reads) and a precisely scoped resource (<selector>._domainkey.<domain>) and enumerates the returned facts: key type, revocation via empty p=, decoded key size, strength hint, and v=DKIM1 syntax. It also explicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling security_dmarc_spf_dkim, so an agent can choose without opening either schema.

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?

Gives an explicit exclusion ('Does not check a signed message') and routes the agent to the correct alternative ('security_dmarc_spf_dkim when you need email authentication DNS records for a domain'). That is a clear when-to-use/when-not/alternative triad.

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

All SiteCheck Web Intel 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?