What can you do with this server?

A local, privacy-first domain security checker that runs checks across 4 categories, returning scored, remediation-ready reports — without telemetry or third-party scoring services. * Scan a domain or URL (check_domain): Run live checks against any domain or URL and receive a 0–100 scored report with a letter grade, covering: * SSL/TLS: Certificate validity and expiry * Email authentication: SPF, DMARC, DKIM, MTA-STS, MX records, and BIMI * DNS & infrastructure: DNSSEC, PTR/reverse DNS, CAA records, blacklist reputation, domain registration expiry, and WHOIS/RDAP data redaction * Web security: HSTS, CSP (with quality scoring), X-Frame-Options, CMS/server version exposure, and HSTS preload-list status * Filter scans by category: Restrict a scan to ssl, email, dns, or web instead of running all checks * Choose output format: Get results as a human-readable report or raw json * List all available checks (list_checks): Retrieve every check grouped by category, with descriptions of why each matters * Explain a specific check (explain_check): Get a detailed explanation of any check by ID (e.g. dmarc, hsts_preload), including what it verifies, why it matters, and how to remediate failures * Multilingual support: All tools support English (en) and Spanish (es), configurable per call or via the OKSIGENIA_LANG environment variable

Which integrations are available for this server?

Provides DNS resolution and malware/phishing reputation lookup through Cloudflare's DoH and security resolver.

How do I use @oksigenia/checker-mcp?

1. Click on "Install Server". 2. Wait a few minutes for the server to deploy. Once ready, it will show a "Started" state. 3. In the chat, type @ followed by the MCP server name and your instructions, e.g., "@@oksigenia/checker-mcp scan example.com for DNS and email issues" That's it! The server will respond to your query, and you can continue using it as needed. Here is a step-by-step guide with screenshots.

@oksigenia/checker-mcp

by OksigeniaSL

Overview Schema Related Servers Score Discussions

TypeScript

Remote

@oksigenia/checker-mcp

A domain security and privacy checker exposed as an MCP server. It runs entirely on your machine, makes no telemetry calls, and resolves DNS through Cloudflare DoH instead of Google.

Ask any MCP client to scan a domain and get back a scored report covering the certificate, email authentication, DNS and infrastructure, and web security headers, with a plain remediation for anything that fails.

Why it's different

Local-first. The server runs over stdio and does its own DNS-over-HTTPS, HTTP, RDAP and TLS lookups. The only network traffic is the checks themselves.
Zero telemetry. No analytics, no phone-home, no third-party scoring service in the loop.
Privacy by default. DNS goes to Cloudflare DoH rather than Google, and the reputation check uses Cloudflare's malware/phishing resolver.
Free software. Licensed GPL-3.0-or-later. Read it, run it, change it, self-host it.

Related MCP server: mcp-server-dns

Tools

The server exposes three tools.

`check_domain`

Scan a domain or URL and return a scored report from real live checks.

// arguments
{
  "domain": "example.com",          // bare domain or full URL
  "categories": ["ssl", "email"],   // optional subset; defaults to all
  "format": "report",               // "report" (default) or "json"
  "lang": "en"                      // "es" or "en"
}

`list_checks`

List every check grouped by category, with the reason each one matters.

{ "lang": "en" }

`explain_check`

Explain a single check by id, why it matters, and how to remediate a failure.

{ "check_id": "dmarc", "lang": "en" }

Checks

Seventeen checks across four categories, weighted to a 0-100 score.

Category	Check id	What it verifies
ssl	`ssl`	SSL/TLS certificate validity and expiry
email	`spf`	SPF record present and not overly permissive
email	`dmarc`	DMARC policy and reporting
email	`dkim`	DKIM signing (common selectors probed)
email	`mta_sts`	MTA-STS against SMTP downgrade attacks
email	`mx`	MX records for mail delivery
email	`bimi`	BIMI brand logo record and VMC
dns	`dnssec`	DNSSEC signing on the zone
dns	`ptr`	PTR / forward-confirmed reverse DNS
dns	`caa`	CAA records restricting certificate issuance
dns	`blacklist`	Malware/phishing reputation
dns	`expiry`	Domain registration expiry
dns	`whois_redact`	WHOIS/RDAP personal-data redaction
web	`headers`	HTTP security headers (HSTS, CSP, X-Frame-Options, …)
web	`csp`	Content-Security-Policy quality
web	`web_tech`	CMS/server version and API exposure
web	`hsts_preload`	HSTS preload-list status

Run list_checks for the full descriptions, or explain_check for one at a time.

Install

Run it straight from npm with npx:

npx @oksigenia/checker-mcp

claude mcp add oksigenia-checker -- npx -y @oksigenia/checker-mcp

Or add it to any MCP client config (works in Claude Desktop, Claude Code, or any MCP client):

{
  "mcpServers": {
    "oksigenia-checker": {
      "command": "npx",
      "args": ["-y", "@oksigenia/checker-mcp"],
      "env": { "OKSIGENIA_LANG": "en" }
    }
  }
}

Then ask: "Check the security of example.com" or "Explain the dmarc check."

Run with Docker

Build and run it as a container. It speaks MCP over stdio, so run it attached to your client's stdin/stdout (-i), not on a port.

docker build -t oksigenia-checker-mcp .
docker run --rm -i oksigenia-checker-mcp

Languages

Reports render in Spanish and English. Set the default with OKSIGENIA_LANG (es or en), or pass lang on any tool call. It defaults to English.

Privacy

The only thing that leaves your machine is the domain name you scan, sent to:

Cloudflare DoH (cloudflare-dns.com) and Cloudflare's security resolver, for DNS and reputation
public RDAP (rdap.org), for registration and WHOIS-privacy data
the HSTS preload API, for preload status
the target site itself, over HTTPS, to read its certificate and security headers

There is no telemetry, no analytics, and no third-party scoring service. Nothing about your queries is stored or transmitted anywhere else.

Develop

npm install
npm run build       # tsup -> dist/
npm run typecheck   # tsc --noEmit
npm test            # vitest (hermetic, mocked network)
npm run smoke       # spawn the built server and exercise every tool live

Dev watch: npm run dev.

src/engine.ts — the network engine. Language-agnostic: returns i18n keys, not text. Every check is individually resilient and runChecks never throws.
src/i18n.ts — es/en dictionaries and t().
src/index.ts — the MCP server: renders engine keys into the requested language and exposes the three tools.

See CONTRIBUTING.md for the PR flow.

License

GPL-3.0-or-later © Oksigenia SL

Available Tools

3 tools

check_domainCheck a domain's securityA

Run the Oksigenia Checker against a domain and return a scored security report from real live checks (SSL/TLS, email authentication, DNS & infrastructure, web security). Accepts a bare domain or a URL. Optionally restrict to specific categories.

ParametersJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`lang`	No	Report language: 'es' or 'en'. Defaults to $OKSIGENIA_LANG or 'en'.
`domain`	Yes	Domain or URL to scan, e.g. 'oksigenia.com' or 'https://oksigenia.com/blog'.
`format`	No	Output format: human-readable 'report' (default) or raw 'json'.
`categories`	No	Optional subset of categories. Defaults to all: ssl, email, dns, web.

Output Schema

ParametersJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`lang`	Yes
`grade`	Yes
`score`	Yes
`checks`	Yes
`domain`	Yes
`summary`	Yes

TDQS

A4.2/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. Mentions live checks and output formats but lacks explicit statement about read-only nature, auth requirements, or error behavior. Moderately transparent but could be more specific.

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 sentences, front-loaded with verb and resource, no unnecessary words. Highly efficient.

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?

Output schema exists, so return format detail is not needed. Description covers purpose, scope, and options. Lacks prerequisites or error handling, but overall adequate for a straightforward check tool.

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 descriptions cover all 4 parameters (100% coverage). Description adds value by clarifying domain/URL acceptance and optional category restriction, going beyond schema details.

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?

Clearly states it runs Oksigenia Checker against a domain, returns a scored security report from live checks, accepts domain or URL, and optionally restricts categories. Distinguishes from siblings list_checks and explain_check by being the execution tool.

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?

Implied usage: to get a domain security report. Sibling names provide context, but no explicit when-not-to-use or alternatives. Still clear enough for effective selection.

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

explain_checkExplain a check and how to fix itA

Given a check id (see list_checks), explain what it verifies, why it matters, and how to remediate a failure.

ParametersJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`lang`	No	Report language: 'es' or 'en'. Defaults to $OKSIGENIA_LANG or 'en'.
`check_id`	Yes	The check id, e.g. 'ssl', 'dmarc', 'hsts_preload'.

TDQS

A4/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It describes the output behavior (explaining verification, importance, remediation) but does not disclose potential side effects, rate limits, or output structure. The read-only nature is implied but not explicit.

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 description is a single sentence that is concise and front-loaded with the tool's purpose. Every word is informative, and there is no redundancy or wasted content.

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?

The description explains what the output contains, compensating for lack of an output schema. However, it could mention the language parameter's role or output format. Given the complexity (two params, no output schema), it is mostly complete.

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 input schema covers both parameters (check_id, lang) with descriptions. The tool description does not add extra semantics beyond the schema, such as explaining the impact of the lang parameter or how check_id is used. With 100% schema coverage, baseline is 3.

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 clearly states the tool's action ('explain what it verifies, why it matters, and how to remediate a failure') and resource ('a check id'). It distinguishes from sibling tools: 'check_domain' runs checks, 'list_checks' lists them, while this explains.

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?

The description implies usage context ('Given a check id (see list_checks)') by referencing the sibling tool for obtaining valid IDs. It does not explicitly state when not to use or provide alternatives, but the guidance is clear enough for an agent to understand prerequisites.

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

list_checksList available checksA

List every check the Oksigenia Checker performs, grouped by category, with the reason each one matters. Useful to know what check ids exist.

ParametersJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`lang`	No	Report language: 'es' or 'en'. Defaults to $OKSIGENIA_LANG or 'en'.

TDQS

A4/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

No annotations exist, so description must convey behavioral traits. It describes the output (grouped list with reasons) but does not mention side effects, pagination, or performance. As a read-only list operation, this is adequate but not thorough.

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 sentences, no wasted words, front-loaded with core purpose. Every sentence adds value.

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?

For a simple list tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description covers the core purpose and what the output provides (grouped, with reasons). Could mention output structure briefly, but overall sufficient.

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?

Schema coverage is 100% (lang parameter fully described in schema). The description adds no extra meaning about the parameter; it omits mention of lang entirely. Baseline of 3 applies since schema does the work.

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?

Clearly states it lists every check, grouped by category, with reasons. Distinguishes from siblings (check_domain, explain_check) by listing all checks rather than focusing on one.

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?

Explicitly says 'Useful to know what check ids exist,' guiding agents to use it when they need to discover available checks. Lacks explicit exclusions or alternatives, but the context of sibling tools provides indirect guidance.

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

Install Server

RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

TDQS

A4.4/5.0

Disambiguation5/5

Each tool has a distinct purpose: check_domain executes checks, list_checks enumerates them, and explain_check provides details on a specific check. No overlap or ambiguity.

Naming Consistency5/5

All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern in snake_case: check_domain, list_checks, explain_check. Predictable and clear.

Tool Count5/5

Three tools are appropriate for the server's scope: run, enumerate, and explain. Each tool is essential and earns its place.

Completeness5/5

The tool surface covers the complete workflow: running checks, listing available checks, and explaining individual checks. No obvious gaps for the stated purpose.

Maintenance

ActivitySlowing

ResponsivenessSyncing

Resources

Need Help?

Related Servers

Related MCP Connectors

mcp A
com.domainposture
Remote MCP server: 19 domain-hygiene and email-auth tools (DNS, SPF, DMARC, DKIM, TLS).
Security Networking & Infrastructure
222
mcpcheckup A
io.github.fpetitit
Scans remote MCP servers for protocol, security, and TLS issues; exposes scan tools via MCP.
Penetration Testing Security
22
ドメイン番人 A
io.github.j-doi
ドメインの設定を調べる MCP サーバー。SPF / DKIM / DMARC・DNS・SSL 証明書・セキュリティヘッダ・サブドメイン・類似ドメインを、公開情報だけで確認します。登録不要・無料。
Security Networking & Infrastructure Penetration Testing
11
sentrysurface
io.github.sentrysurface
Cybersecurity MCP server for URL scanning, threat intelligence, and domain reputation.
Security Penetration Testing
2

Related MCP Servers

Domain Tools MCP Server
Web Scraping
deshabhishek007
A
license
Not graded
quality
D
maintenance
A Model Context Protocol server that provides comprehensive domain analysis capabilities including WHOIS lookups, DNS record queries, and DNS health checking.
Updated a year ago (2025-06-20 18:48 UTC)
14
MIT
mcp-server-dns
Search Developer Tools
ofershap
A
license
A
quality
D
maintenance
MCP server for DNS lookups, reverse DNS, WHOIS, and domain checks. Zero auth, zero config.
Updated 6 months ago (2026-03-10 09:22 UTC)
5
55
3
MIT
SEOSiri DNS Security Audit MCPofficial
Security Networking & Infrastructure Monitoring
SEOSiri-Official
A
license
Not graded
quality
B
maintenance
MCP server for Technical SEO DNS record auditing, SOA expiry health checks, SSL/TLS inspection, and HTTP security header analysis. Enables comprehensive security audits and scoring via 10 tools.
Updated a month ago (2026-08-02 05:13 UTC)
MIT
nirikshak
Penetration Testing Security Networking & Infrastructure
ewwhardik
A
license
Not graded
quality
C
maintenance
MCP server for passive domain reconnaissance and attack surface monitoring. It scans subdomains, security headers, TLS certs, and tech stack, detects subdomain takeovers, and reports changes since the last scan.
Updated a month ago (2026-08-08 06:44 UTC)
2
MIT

Latest Blog Posts

Who's Calling? MCP Hosts Are an Identity Blind Spot (And the Spec Knows It)
By Om-Shree-0709 on July 25, 2026.
mcp
Agent Identity
OAuth 2.1
Your AI Chatbot Just Exposed Your CEO's Salary to an Intern
By Om-Shree-0709 on July 2, 2026.
Agent Identity
MCP Security
OAuth Delegation
Why MCP Servers Need Execution Sandboxing (And Why Your Current Stack Isn't Enough)
By Om-Shree-0709 on June 30, 2026.
Agentic Ai
Prompt Injection
WebAssembly

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/OksigeniaSL/checker-mcp'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server

@oksigenia/checker-mcp

Why it's different

Tools

check_domain

list_checks

explain_check

Checks

Install

Run with Docker

Languages

Privacy

Develop

License

Available Tools

Output Schema

TDQS

TDQS

TDQS

TDQS

Maintenance

Resources

Related MCP Connectors

Related MCP Servers

Domain Tools MCP Server

mcp-server-dns

SEOSiri DNS Security Audit MCPofficial

nirikshak

Latest Blog Posts

MCP directory API

`check_domain`

`list_checks`

`explain_check`