scan.mx Email Diagnostics
Server Details
Check email deliverability for a domain: MX, SPF, DKIM, DMARC, blacklists. Graded, no key.
- Status
- Healthy
- Last Tested
- Transport
- Streamable HTTP
- URL
Glama MCP Gateway
Connect through Glama MCP Gateway for full control over tool access and complete visibility into every call.
Full call logging
Every tool call is logged with complete inputs and outputs, so you can debug issues and audit what your agents are doing.
Tool access control
Enable or disable individual tools per connector, so you decide what your agents can and cannot do.
Managed credentials
Glama handles OAuth flows, token storage, and automatic rotation, so credentials never expire on your clients.
Usage analytics
See which tools your agents call, how often, and when, so you can understand usage patterns and catch anomalies.
Tool Definition Quality
Average 4.3/5 across 6 of 6 tools scored.
Each tool targets a distinct aspect of email diagnostics (blacklist, DKIM, DMARC, MX, SPF, or full check). The only overlap is check_domain which intentionally combines all checks, so there is no confusion.
All tool names follow a consistent 'check_' prefix followed by the specific check (e.g., check_blacklist, check_dkim), making the pattern predictable and easy to parse.
With 6 tools, the set covers the core areas of email diagnostics without being excessive or insufficient. The count feels well-scoped for the domain.
The tools cover essential checks (MX, SPF, DKIM, DMARC, blacklists) and SMTP probing via check_domain. Missing advanced checks like ARC or BIMI, but these are niche; the comprehensive check_domain mitigates gaps.
Available Tools
6 toolscheck_blacklistCheck blacklistsARead-onlyInspect
Check whether the domain and its mail server IPs are listed on the Spamhaus (ZEN, DBL, ZRD, AuthBL), SpamCop, GBUdb and PSBL blocklists.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| domain | Yes | The domain to check, e.g. example.com. No scheme or path. |
Output Schema
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
| grade | No | |
| score | No | |
| checks | No | |
| domain | Yes | |
| provider | No | |
| sections | No | |
| selector | No | |
| permalink | No | |
| smtp_note | No | |
| created_at | No | |
| expires_at | No | |
| updated_at | No | |
| smtp_status | No | |
| poll_after_seconds | No |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description adds significant detail beyond annotations: it specifies the exact blocklists checked (Spamhaus variants, SpamCop, GBUdb, PSBL) and clarifies that both the domain and its mail server IPs are evaluated. This goes well beyond the readOnlyHint and openWorldHint annotations.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Single sentence that directly conveys the purpose and scope without redundancy. It is front-loaded and every word contributes meaning.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple tool with one parameter, the description covers what is checked and against which blocklists. Annotations provide safety and open-world context, and an output schema exists to explain return values. No gaps identified.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema describes the domain parameter well (including example and constraint). The description adds value by explaining that the domain is used to derive mail server IPs for checking, which is not in the schema. With 100% schema coverage, baseline is 3; the extra context raises it to 4.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb 'Check' and the resource 'domain and its mail server IPs' against specific blacklists. It distinguishes from sibling tools (check_dkim, check_dmarc, etc.) by focusing on blocklist membership.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description does not explicitly state when to use or when not to use, but the specificity of checking blocklists versus DKIM/DMARC makes the context clear. No exclusion or alternative guidance is provided, but the purpose is sufficiently distinct.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
check_dkimCheck DKIMARead-onlyInspect
Check DKIM signing keys for a domain. Without a selector, common provider selectors are probed. Pass an explicit selector to look up that exact key at selector._domainkey.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| domain | Yes | The domain to check, e.g. example.com. No scheme or path. | |
| selector | No | An explicit DKIM selector to look up (e.g. "google", "s1"). |
Output Schema
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
| grade | No | |
| score | No | |
| checks | No | |
| domain | Yes | |
| provider | No | |
| sections | No | |
| selector | No | |
| permalink | No | |
| smtp_note | No | |
| created_at | No | |
| expires_at | No | |
| updated_at | No | |
| smtp_status | No | |
| poll_after_seconds | No |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description adds behavioral context beyond annotations (readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true) by explaining probing behavior for common selectors vs explicit lookup. However, it does not disclose error conditions or output format, which are partially covered by existing annotations.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two sentences, front-loaded with purpose, no redundant words. Efficiently communicates the tool's function and parameter usage.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple tool with 2 parameters and an output schema, the description covers the main functionality and use cases. No missing information considering the output schema provides return value details.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining how the optional selector parameter affects behavior (probe vs exact lookup), which is not clear from the schema alone.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states 'Check DKIM signing keys for a domain', specifying the verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools (e.g., check_spf, check_dmarc) by focusing on DKIM.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides guidance on when to use the optional selector parameter ('Without a selector, common provider selectors are probed. Pass an explicit selector to look up that exact key.'). It does not explicitly state when not to use this tool, but it is clear in context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
check_dmarcCheck DMARCARead-onlyInspect
Check the domain DMARC policy at _dmarc: presence, policy strength (none/quarantine/reject), and reporting.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| domain | Yes | The domain to check, e.g. example.com. No scheme or path. |
Output Schema
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
| grade | No | |
| score | No | |
| checks | No | |
| domain | Yes | |
| provider | No | |
| sections | No | |
| selector | No | |
| permalink | No | |
| smtp_note | No | |
| created_at | No | |
| expires_at | No | |
| updated_at | No | |
| smtp_status | No | |
| poll_after_seconds | No |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true. The description adds value by specifying the exact DNS record (_dmarc) and the type of information returned (presence, policy strength, reporting), which goes 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.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single concise sentence that clearly and efficiently conveys the tool's purpose without any extraneous information. It earns its place by being both informative and brief.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the simplicity of the tool (one parameter, output schema exists), the description provides sufficient context about what is checked and what is returned. It could be improved by mentioning potential failure cases or DNS record absence, but overall it is adequately complete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has complete description coverage (100%) for the only parameter 'domain', including an example and constraints. The tool description does not add any additional explanation beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool checks DMARC policy at the _dmarc DNS record, listing specific aspects: presence, policy strength (none/quarantine/reject), and reporting. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like check_spf or check_dkim.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description does not provide any explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus its siblings or alternatives. No mention of prerequisites, what to do after checking, or when not to use it.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
check_domainFull email deliverability checkARead-onlyInspect
Run the full email and DNS deliverability check for a domain: MX, SPF, DKIM, DMARC, DNS health, provider detection, and blacklists. Returns a letter grade (A to F), a 0 to 100 score, and every individual check with its RFC reference. Set include_smtp to also run a live SMTP probe of the mail servers: the probe is non-blocking, so when smtp_status is "pending" or "running" call this tool again (poll_after_seconds hints how long to wait) until smtp_status is "complete" and the SMTP checks appear in checks.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| domain | Yes | The domain to check, e.g. example.com. No scheme or path. | |
| include_smtp | No | Also run a live SMTP connectivity probe of the MX hosts. Non-blocking: poll by re-calling until smtp_status is complete. |
Output Schema
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
| grade | No | |
| score | No | |
| checks | No | |
| domain | Yes | |
| provider | No | |
| sections | No | |
| selector | No | |
| permalink | No | |
| smtp_note | No | |
| created_at | No | |
| expires_at | No | |
| updated_at | No | |
| smtp_status | No | |
| poll_after_seconds | No |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations (readOnlyHint, openWorldHint) are complemented by description detailing non-blocking SMTP probe, polling steps, and state transitions ('pending', 'running', 'complete'). No contradiction.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Front-loaded with core action, then specific details on outputs and SMTP polling. Every sentence adds value; no fluff.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given complexity (full check, 2 params, output schema exists), description covers all essential behavioral aspects: what checks are included, output format, and polling mechanism for SMTP.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100%. Description adds context beyond schema: domain format restriction ('No scheme or path'), include_smtp default and polling behavior. Valuable but minor redundancy.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Description clearly states it runs a full email and DNS deliverability check, listing components (MX, SPF, DKIM, DMARC, etc.) and outputs (letter grade, score, checks). Distinguishes from sibling tools like check_mx, check_spf by being comprehensive.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Explicitly defines the tool's scope (full deliverability check) and mentions optional SMTP probe with polling behavior. Slightly lacks explicit when-to-use vs alternatives, but sibling tool list and context make differentiation clear.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
check_mxCheck MX recordsARead-onlyInspect
Check the MX records of a domain: presence, hostnames, resolution, null-MX, and common misconfigurations.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| domain | Yes | The domain to check, e.g. example.com. No scheme or path. |
Output Schema
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
| grade | No | |
| score | No | |
| checks | No | |
| domain | Yes | |
| provider | No | |
| sections | No | |
| selector | No | |
| permalink | No | |
| smtp_note | No | |
| created_at | No | |
| expires_at | No | |
| updated_at | No | |
| smtp_status | No | |
| poll_after_seconds | No |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already mark readOnlyHint and openWorldHint. The description adds concrete behavioral details about what is checked (hostnames, resolution, etc.) without contradicting annotations.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Single sentence that immediately communicates the tool's purpose and scope. No filler or redundant phrasing.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple tool with one parameter and an output schema, the description provides sufficient context. Additional details like rate limits or permissions are not critical given the readOnlyHint and openWorldHint.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100% with parameter description covering domain format. The description adds no new parameter information beyond the schema, so baseline score of 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool checks MX records and lists specific aspects (presence, hostnames, resolution, null-MX, misconfigurations). It distinctly sets this tool apart from siblings like check_spf or check_dmarc.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No explicit guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives. The sibling list suggests related tools but does not provide selection criteria. Usage is implied from the purpose.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
check_spfCheck SPFARead-onlyInspect
Check the domain SPF policy: presence, syntax, the all qualifier, and the 10-lookup limit.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| domain | Yes | The domain to check, e.g. example.com. No scheme or path. |
Output Schema
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
| grade | No | |
| score | No | |
| checks | No | |
| domain | Yes | |
| provider | No | |
| sections | No | |
| selector | No | |
| permalink | No | |
| smtp_note | No | |
| created_at | No | |
| expires_at | No | |
| updated_at | No | |
| smtp_status | No | |
| poll_after_seconds | No |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true. The description adds specific behavioral details on what is checked (presence, syntax, all qualifier, 10-lookup limit), adding value beyond annotations. No contradictions.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Single sentence that is front-loaded with the purpose and efficiently lists the specific checks. No unnecessary words.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the simple tool with one parameter and an existing output schema, the description covers what the tool checks comprehensively. No missing information.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100% with a clear parameter description. The description adds no additional meaning for the parameter beyond what the schema already provides (e.g., 'No scheme or path'), so baseline 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb 'Check' and the specific resource 'domain SPF policy', enumerating four aspects (presence, syntax, all qualifier, 10-lookup limit) that distinguish it from sibling tools like check_dmarc or check_dkim.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage for SPF checking but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives or provide exclusions. Sibling names provide context, but no direct guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Claim this connector by publishing a /.well-known/glama.json file on your server's domain with the following structure:
{
"$schema": "https://glama.ai/mcp/schemas/connector.json",
"maintainers": [{ "email": "your-email@example.com" }]
}The email address must match the email associated with your Glama account. Once published, Glama will automatically detect and verify the file within a few minutes.
Control your server's listing on Glama, including description and metadata
Access analytics and receive server usage reports
Get monitoring and health status updates for your server
Feature your server to boost visibility and reach more users
For users:
Full audit trail – every tool call is logged with inputs and outputs for compliance and debugging
Granular tool control – enable or disable individual tools per connector to limit what your AI agents can do
Centralized credential management – store and rotate API keys and OAuth tokens in one place
Change alerts – get notified when a connector changes its schema, adds or removes tools, or updates tool definitions, so nothing breaks silently
For server owners:
Proven adoption – public usage metrics on your listing show real-world traction and build trust with prospective users
Tool-level analytics – see which tools are being used most, helping you prioritize development and documentation
Direct user feedback – users can report issues and suggest improvements through the listing, giving you a channel you would not have otherwise
The connector status is unhealthy when Glama is unable to successfully connect to the server. This can happen for several reasons:
The server is experiencing an outage
The URL of the server is wrong
Credentials required to access the server are missing or invalid
If you are the owner of this MCP connector and would like to make modifications to the listing, including providing test credentials for accessing the server, please contact support@glama.ai.
Discussions
No comments yet. Be the first to start the discussion!