osint-mcp-server

dns_email_security

Analyzes domain email security by checking SPF, DMARC, and DKIM records. Provides risk assessment and recommendations for common DKIM selectors.

Instructions

Analyze email security posture: SPF, DMARC, DKIM records with risk assessment and recommendations. Checks common DKIM selectors (google, selector1, selector2, k1, etc.).

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "domain": "<domain>"
    },
    "name": "dns_email_security"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`domain`	Yes	Domain to analyze
`dkim_selectors`	No	Custom DKIM selectors to check (default: common selectors)

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.2.0Mar 17, 2026

TDQS

A3.7/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses that the tool checks common DKIM selectors and provides risk assessment/recommendations, but lacks details on error handling, rate limits, or what happens if records are missing.

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 clear, concise sentences. Front-loaded with the main purpose and followed by a specific detail about DKIM selectors. No redundant or unnecessary words.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness3/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a simple 2-parameter tool with no output schema, the description adequately explains the analysis scope but does not describe the return format (e.g., structure of risk assessment or recommendations), which an agent might need.

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% with descriptions for both domain and dkim_selectors. The description adds concrete examples of default DKIM selectors (google, selector1, etc.), providing extra value beyond the 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?

The description clearly states the tool analyzes email security posture including SPF, DMARC, DKIM records with risk assessment and recommendations. It distinguishes from sibling tools like dns_lookup or dns_spf_chain by focusing on comprehensive email security analysis.

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?

The description implies usage for email security analysis but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like dns_spf_chain or other DNS tools. No guidance on prerequisites or exclusions is provided.

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