Check Email
check_emailCheck email DNS health for a domain: MX records, SPF, DMARC, DKIM. Auto-detects the email provider from MX records.
Input Schema
TableJSON Schema
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| domain | Yes | Domain to check email health for |
domani
by run.domani
Schema Changelog
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
- First observed
TDQS
A3.8/5.0
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are present, so the description carries the behavioral burden. It clearly discloses the specific checks performed (MX, SPF, DMARC, DKIM) and the auto-detection of the email provider, which is valuable beyond the tool name. It does not, however, describe return format, error conditions, or network behavior, but for a read-only check the core behavior is well covered.
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?
Two short sentences, front-loaded with the action and specific records. No redundant or filler content; every clause adds information.
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?
Despite lacking an output schema and annotations, the tool is simple (one parameter, no nested objects). The description adequately covers what the tool does and the auto-detection behavior. It doesn't explain the return format, which would be useful, but the description is sufficiently complete for selection and basic invocation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema already documents the single 'domain' parameter with 100% coverage. The description restates 'for a domain' without adding format, validation, or examples beyond the schema. Baseline of 3 applies.
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 states a clear purpose with specific verb and resource: checking email DNS health, listing MX, SPF, DMARC, DKIM. This distinguishes it from siblings like dns_check (generic DNS) and check_email_deliverability (deliverability focused).
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No explicit guidance about when to prefer this tool over check_email_deliverability or dns_check. Usage is only implied by the purpose statement; no alternatives or exclusions are mentioned.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Try in Browser
Glama MCP Gateway
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
TDQS
A3.5/5.0
Disambiguation3/5
While most tools have distinct purposes, several clusters overlap significantly (e.g., check_email, check_email_deliverability, get_email_deliverability, get_domain_email_status; buy_domain, buy_aftermarket, acquire_domain). The descriptions are detailed and help differentiate, but the sheer number of tools makes it challenging for an agent to select the correct one without careful reading.
Naming Consistency3/5
The dominant pattern is verb_noun with underscores (e.g., create_mailbox, list_domains), but there are notable inconsistencies: destructive actions mix delete/remove/cancel/revoke/unsell, and a few names deviate entirely (search, dns_check, domain_status). The pattern is recognizable but not uniformly applied.
Tool Count1/5
With 122 tools, this vastly exceeds the 50+ threshold for extreme mismatch. Even for a comprehensive domain and email platform, the tool count is overwhelming and will likely hinder agent performance through excessive choice and context bloat.
Completeness4/5
The server covers a wide range of domains, DNS, email, marketplace, negotiations, transfers, webhooks, tokens, and billing. Minor gaps exist, such as no update operation for mail rules, no direct domain deletion, and limited mailbox configuration beyond forwarding and credentials, but most lifecycle workflows are supported.