email-spam-tester

Get a test address

get_test_address

Reserve a single-use address to send a draft email to, for a full check.

Returns the address and the URL its report will appear at. The address
accepts exactly one message and expires after an hour. The email has to be
sent by the person, from the platform or mailbox they really send from:
half the checks read what that platform adds. The report covers 42 checks
(SPF, DKIM, DMARC, reverse DNS, TLS, blocklists, content, links, the
Gmail and Yahoo bulk-sender rules) and a plan of what to fix.

lang is decided now because the message arrives minutes later over SMTP,
which carries no hint of who is waiting for it. What wait_for_report
returns quotes check lines in English whatever it is set to; the person
following report_url sees their own language.

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`lang`	No	ISO code of the language the report and the fix plan are written in for the person who opens the report page, for example "en", "de" or "pt-BR". Defaults to the language of the conversation. Unknown codes fall back to English.
`include_placement`	No	Also check which folder (inbox, spam, promotions) the email lands in at different mailbox providers, from the same send. The email then goes to a list of recipients instead of one address and needs a marker in the subject; both come back. Some provider inboxes are public test inboxes: the subject, the sender name and the folder are shown on a public web page, so it suits messages that are not confidential.

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`view`	Yes	Which card to draw.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed1 schema field changedOct 12, 2026

changedOutput schema / properties / view / description

Previous value: -"test, report, mailbox, mailboxes, series or error"New value: +"Which card to draw."

Changed1 schema field changedSep 30, 2026

changedInput schema / properties / include_placement / description

Previous value: -"Also check which folder (inbox, spam, promotions) the email lands in at different mailbox providers, from the same send. The email then goes to a list of recipients instead of one address and needs a marker in the subject; both come back. Some provider inboxes are public test inboxes: the subject, the sender name and the folder are shown on a public web page. Only set it when the person asked for placement and the message is not confidential; say so to them."New value: +"Also check which folder (inbox, spam, promotions) the email lands in at different mailbox providers, from the same send. The email then goes to a list of recipients instead of one address and needs a marker in the subject; both come back. Some provider inboxes are public test inboxes: the subject, the sender name and the folder are shown on a public web page, so it suits messages that are not confidential."

Changed11 schema fields changedSep 30, 2026

addedInput schema / properties / include_placement

Added value: +{
+  "default": false,
+  "description": "Also check which folder (inbox, spam, promotions) the email lands in at different mailbox providers, from the same send. The email then goes to a list of recipients instead of one address and needs a marker in the subject; both come back. Some provider inboxes are public test inboxes: the subject, the sender name and the folder are shown on a public web page. Only set it when the person asked for placement and the message is not confidential; say so to them.",
+  "title": "Include Placement",
+  "type": "boolean"
+}

addedInput schema / properties / lang / anyOf

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

changedInput schema / properties / lang / default
```
Previous value: -"en"New value: +null
```

changedInput schema / properties / lang / description

Previous value: -"ISO code of the language the report and the fix plan are written in for the person who opens the report page, for example \"en\", \"de\" or \"pt-BR\". Unknown codes fall back to English."New value: +"ISO code of the language the report and the fix plan are written in for the person who opens the report page, for example \"en\", \"de\" or \"pt-BR\". Defaults to the language of the conversation. Unknown codes fall back to English."

removedInput schema / properties / lang / type
```
Removed value: -"string"
```
addedOutput schema / additionalProperties
```
Added value: +true
```

addedOutput schema / description

Added value: +"What every tool returns for the card; `view` says which card."

removedOutput schema / properties / result

Removed value: -{
-  "title": "Result",
-  "type": "string"
-}

addedOutput schema / properties / view

Added value: +{
+  "description": "test, report, mailbox, mailboxes, series or error",
+  "title": "View",
+  "type": "string"
+}

changedOutput schema / required

Previous value: -[
-  "result"
-]New value: +[
+  "view"
+]

changedOutput schema / title

Previous value: -"get_test_addressOutput"New value: +"Output"

Changed1 schema field changedSep 18, 2026

addedInput schema / properties / lang / description

Added value: +"ISO code of the language the report and the fix plan are written in for the person who opens the report page, for example \"en\", \"de\" or \"pt-BR\". Unknown codes fall back to English."

First observedSep 17, 2026

TDQS

A4.5/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

The annotations cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint=false, openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=false, destructiveHint=false), and the description adds substantial behavioral detail beyond them: single-use, one-hour expiry, must be sent from the real sending platform, why lang must be chosen at reservation time (SMTP carries no locale hint), and the split between English check lines in wait_for_report versus the localized report page. No contradiction with 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 purpose and constraints are front-loaded in the first two sentences, and the later paragraphs each add real information (expiry, send requirements, check coverage, language timing). It is somewhat longer than strictly necessary for a two-parameter tool, with some enumerations that could be trimmed.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the async, email-mediated flow, the description covers the lifecycle well and an output schema exists so return values need not be detailed. It does not explicitly name which sibling to poll for the finished report or the sequencing after the message is sent, which is the main remaining gap for an agent orchestrating the workflow.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, and the description earns extra credit by explaining why lang is captured now rather than later and how it affects the two output surfaces. include_placement is not mentioned in the description at all, so it does not compensate for that gap, but the schema already documents it fully.

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 ("Reserve a single-use address to send a draft email to") and defines the scope of the resulting check (42 checks, SPF through bulk-sender rules). It is clearly distinguishable from the siblings get_report, get_message_source, and wait_for_report, which it treats as downstream consumers of the address it creates.

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?

It establishes the workflow context (reserve here, send from your real platform, then read report_url or wait_for_report) and contrasts what wait_for_report returns versus what the report page shows. However, it never explicitly says when to choose this over the sibling tools or what happens if the address is used incorrectly beyond the one-message/one-hour constraints.

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

All email-spam-tester 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.