Skip to main content
Glama
OrtaMarco

domain-security-mcp-server

by OrtaMarco

Email Authentication Audit

email_auth_audit
Read-onlyIdempotent

Audits a domain's SPF, DKIM, DMARC, and MX records, then returns a 0–100 score, A–F grade, and prioritized fixes to improve email security.

Instructions

Headline tool. Audits a domain's email-authentication posture in one call — SPF, DKIM, DMARC and MX — then returns a 0–100 score, an A–F grade and a prioritised list of fixes. Use this first; reach for the per-record tools (spf_check, dmarc_check, dkim_check) only when you need the full detail of one mechanism.

Args:

  • domain (string): the domain to audit.

  • dkim_selectors (string[], optional): DKIM selectors to probe. If omitted, common provider selectors are tried (absence is then inconclusive).

  • response_format ('markdown' | 'json'): output format (default 'markdown').

Returns (JSON): { "domain": string, "grade": "A".."F", "score": number, // 0-100 "has_mx": boolean, "mx_hosts": string[], "spf": { found, record, all_qualifier, lookup_count, exceeds_lookup_limit, findings[] }, "dmarc":{ found, policy, tags, findings[] }, "dkim": { any_found, selectors[], findings[] }, "top_recommendations": string[] }

Examples:

  • "Is example.com protected against email spoofing?" -> email_auth_audit(domain="example.com")

  • "Audit acme.com, our DKIM selector is 'k1'" -> email_auth_audit(domain="acme.com", dkim_selectors=["k1"])

Errors: returns an error only if the domain is malformed; missing records are reported as findings, not errors.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
domainYesDomain to audit, e.g. 'example.com'.
dkim_selectorsNoOptional DKIM selectors to check (e.g. ['google','selector1']). If omitted, a list of common provider selectors is probed.
response_formatNoOutput format: 'markdown' for a human-readable summary (default) or 'json' for the full structured payload.markdown

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
domainYes
gradeYes
scoreYes
has_mxYes
mx_hostsYes
spfYes
dmarcYes
dkimYes
top_recommendationsYes
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already mark as read-only and idempotent. The description adds detailed behavioral context: what records are checked, scoring (0-100, A-F), prioritization of fixes, and error conditions (only malformed domain errors; missing records are findings). No contradiction with annotations.

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?

Well-structured with headline, usage note, Args, Returns (with JSON example), and Errors. Every sentence is necessary and no redundancy. Length is appropriate for the complexity.

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?

Given three parameters, full schema descriptions, output schema available, and sibling tools, the description covers all relevant aspects: purpose, usage context, parameter details, return structure, examples, and error handling. No gaps.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining the implication of omitting dkim_selectors ('absence is then inconclusive') and clarifying response_format default. This exceeds schema-only information.

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 audits a domain's email-authentication posture (SPF, DKIM, DMARC, MX) and returns a score, grade, and prioritized fixes. It uses a specific verb and resource, and distinguishes from sibling per-record tools.

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

Usage Guidelines5/5

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

Explicitly says 'Use this first; reach for the per-record tools... only when you need the full detail of one mechanism.' Provides clear when-to-use and alternative tools guidance, plus examples.

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

Install Server

Other Tools

Latest Blog Posts

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/OrtaMarco/domain-security-mcp-server'

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