Skip to main content
Glama

email-deliverability

by io.inboxguard

Scan domain deliverability

scan_domain
Read-onlyIdempotent

Run a full email-deliverability scan (SPF, DKIM, DMARC, MTA-STS, TLS-RPT, MX TLS, BIMI, DNS blocklists) for a domain and return a 0-100 score with per-check findings. A check can come back not_applicable (does not apply to this domain, e.g. MTA-STS on a domain with no MX — excluded from the score, not a failure) or unverified (could not be determined this scan, e.g. DKIM behind an ESP with a random per-tenant selector like Amazon SES Easy DKIM — never treat as a failure). scoreSubtitle explains the denominator when anything was excluded. Runs at your plan tier (full blocklist set on paid plans) and saves the scan to the domain history in your account.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
domainYesDomain to scan, e.g. example.com.
dkimSelectorsNoOptional DKIM selectors to probe.

Schema Changelog

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

  1. First observed

TDQS

A3.9/5.0
Behavior1/5

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

Annotation Contradiction: Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true, but description states 'saves the scan to the domain history in your account,' implying a state mutation. This directly contradicts the read-only hint. Aside from contradiction, the description otherwise adds useful context about not_applicable/unverified statuses and plan-tier behavior.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Every sentence contributes: action, output, status semantics, scoring explanation, plan behavior, persistence. Long but dense and front-loaded; no 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 complex scanning tool with no output schema, description covers statuses, score denominator, plan-tier differences, and side effects. It gives enough for an agent to set expectations and interpret findings.

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 has 100% coverage for both params, so baseline is 3. Description adds meaningful context for dkimSelectors by explaining DKIM unverified cases (e.g., Amazon SES Easy DKIM random selectors) and reinforces domain scope with examples.

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?

Description uses a specific verb+resource ('Run a full email-deliverability scan') and enumerates concrete checks (SPF, DKIM, DMARC, MTA-STS, etc.) and result (0-100 score with per-check findings). It clearly distinguishes from narrower sibling tools like check_blocklists by emphasizing a full scan.

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?

Provides clear context: use for a full deliverability scan that returns a scored report, respects plan tier, and persists to history. It lacks explicit 'use X instead' exclusions, but the scope and side effects make appropriate use clear.

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

All email-deliverability toolsInspect
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

A4/5.0
Disambiguation4/5

Tools have distinct purposes overall, but some minor overlap exists between get_domain and get_deliverability_score, as well as between list_scans and get_scan_job. However, descriptions clarify the differences.

Naming Consistency5/5

All tool names follow a clear verb_noun pattern (e.g., analyze_headers, check_blocklists, get_deliverability_score) with consistent snake_case, making it easy for an agent to predict tool names.

Tool Count4/5

26 tools is slightly above the ideal range but appropriate for a comprehensive email deliverability service covering scanning, DNS fixes, DMARC, inbox placement, SNDS, alerts, and sharing. The count feels justified.

Completeness4/5

The tool surface covers core deliverability workflows: scanning, DNS fixes, DMARC, blocklists, inbox placement, SNDS, alerts, and sharing. Minor gaps exist (e.g., no explicit add domain tool), but the scan_domain tool covers that use case.

Resources