Radar Agent Tools

Email Auth Check - SPF, DKIM, DMARC, MX, MTA-STS, BIMI

email_auth

Read-onlyIdempotent

Email deliverability and spoofing check for a domain in one call: MX + mail provider, SPF (all qualifier, DNS lookup count vs the limit of 10), DMARC policy/pct/reporting, DKIM keys on 20+ common selectors (or yours), MTA-STS, TLS-RPT and BIMI, with a 0-100 score, grade and plain-English issues. Live DNS, ~1 s. Free: 25 calls/day per IP. Paid: $0.002 per call via x402 at https://2-29-135-242.sslip.io/x402/email-auth.

Example tool call

This call uses example arguments supplied in the tool’s input schema.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "domain": "github.com"
    },
    "name": "email_auth"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`domain`	Yes	Domain or email address, e.g. example.com or info@example.com
`dkimSelectors`	No	Extra DKIM selectors to check, comma separated, e.g. s2048,mailchimp

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed2 schema fields changedNov 4, 2026
- addedInput schema / examples
```
Added value: +[
+  {
+    "domain": "github.com"
+  }
+]
```
- addedInput schema / required
```
Added value: +[
+  "domain"
+]
```
AddedNov 3, 2026

TDQS

A4/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and openWorldHint, and the description goes beyond them by disclosing live DNS resolution, ~1 s latency, a 25 calls/day per-IP free tier, and $0.002 per call via x402 with the endpoint URL. That cost and rate-limit disclosure is exactly the extra context annotations cannot carry, though error/failure behavior for invalid domains is not described.

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?

The core capability, the full check list, the output shape (0-100 score, grade, plain-English issues), latency, quota, and pricing are packed into two front-loaded sentences with no filler. Each clause carries decision-relevant information for an agent.

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 2-parameter, read-only, no-output-schema tool, the description covers what is inspected, what is returned (score, grade, issues), how long it takes, what it costs, and the throttling limit. Nothing an agent needs in order to call it correctly or budget calls 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, and the description adds real meaning by clarifying that DKIM is checked against 20+ common selectors by default but accepts user-supplied ones ("or yours"), which explains why dkimSelectors exists rather than just restating its type. The domain parameter's email-address tolerance is only covered in the schema, not the description.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description uses a specific verb+resource ("Email deliverability and spoofing check for a domain") and enumerates the exact record types checked (MX, SPF, DMARC, DKIM, MTA-STS, TLS-RPT, BIMI), so an agent immediately knows what it does. It falls short of a 5 because it never contrasts itself with the sibling domain_intel, which plausibly overlaps in domain-lookup scope.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

Usage context is implied by the purpose and made concrete through the live-DNS note, ~1 s latency, and the free/paid call terms, which help an agent decide whether calling is affordable. There is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance and no routing to or away from the sibling domain_intel tool.

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

All Radar Agent Tools 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?