Skip to main content
Glama
RoscoNL

intodns-mcp

by RoscoNL
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

analyze_raw_email

Read-onlyIdempotent

Analyze raw email source to pinpoint delivery failures or spam issues. Parses SPF/DKIM/DMARC, checks reputation and content, delivers a 0-100 spam score with fix suggestions.

Instructions

Read-only analysis of a pasted raw RFC-5322 MIME email source. Parses Authentication-Results, Received chain, SPF/DKIM/DMARC/ARC verdicts, sender IP reputation/blacklist status, content-side spam triggers (suspicious URLs, misleading From, content/HTML imbalance), and produces a 0-100 spam score plus AI-assisted fix suggestions. rawEmail is full headers+body, max 500KB. Use to debug a specific failing email when the user can paste the raw source from their MUA; use create_email_test instead when the user can resend it. POST body is processed in-memory and not stored. No auth.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
rawEmailYesRaw email source including headers and body, max 500,000 characters

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed3 schema fields changedv1.10.0
    • removedInput schema / additionalProperties
      Removed value: -false
    • changedInput schema / properties / rawEmail / description
      Previous value: -"Raw email source including headers and body, max 500KB"New value: +"Raw email source including headers and body, max 500,000 characters"
    • addedInput schema / properties / rawEmail / maxLength
      Added value: +500000
  2. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

A4.7/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already mark read-only/idempotent/non-destructive; description reinforces with 'Read-only analysis' and adds key operational facts: in-memory processing, no storage, no auth. This exceeds minimal disclosure.

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?

Dense, front-loaded description: purpose first, output summary, usage rule, then operational constraints. No wasted words; 5 sentences carry high value.

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 an analysis tool with no output schema, the description enumerates the major parsed categories and the final outputs (0-100 score, fix suggestions), plus one-param usage. It covers the tool's behavioral contract sufficiently.

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?

Only one parameter, and the input schema already fully describes rawEmail's content and max length. Description merely restates max 500KB, so it adds little beyond schema.

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 'Read-only analysis of a pasted raw RFC-5322 MIME email source' with a specific verb and resource, and lists concrete outputs. It differentiates from create_email_test in the same tool family.

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 states when to use: to debug a specific failing email when user can paste raw source; names create_email_test as alternative when resending is possible. This is ideal usage guidance.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools