Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
DNS Doctor

DNS Doctor

by dnsdoctor
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin

Get Email Test Result

get_email_test
Read-onlyIdempotent

Retrieves the status and authentication results of an email deliverability test after the message is sent, including SPF, DKIM, DMARC, delivery estimates, and fix advice.

Instructions

Use this after start_email_test, once the user says they sent the email. Returns status pending | received | expired | error. pending means the message has not arrived (or is still being checked): ask the user to send it if they have not, then call again. received carries result: the sending IP and reverse DNS, STARTTLS, SPF, every DKIM signature, DMARC with alignment and the disposition the policy implies, message format, links, domain age, blocklist and malware-feed status, and a score out of 10 with every deduction itemized, plus advice. With scoring_version 2 the score has one decimal and is 10 only when nothing was deducted and not_scored lists no check marked blocks_ten; an older test (scoring_version 1) keeps its original score. A version 2 result also carries sender_requirements (Gmail's, Yahoo's, Microsoft Outlook's and Apple's published sender rules against what this message showed, not a compliance verdict) and result.estimates.providers: for gmail, yahoo, microsoft and apple, accepted_pct (whether it takes the message at all) and inbox_pct (inbox rather than spam once accepted; null when there is no estimate), each with its basis. Relay them as estimates, never as a promise of delivery. A 'temperror' is a lookup that did not complete, NOT a failure, and is never scored. Present any record in result.dmarc.fix verbatim and never compose one; when it is null and result.dmarc.fix_withheld is set (for example a domain on Automatic DMARC), relay that reason instead. SPF is diagnose-only and DKIM keys come from the sending provider. The deduction coded ai_read and ai_assessment, when present, come from an automated read of the redacted message: attribute them as such (ai_read costs at most 0.5 points) and never present either as a spam score. Read-only.

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
test_idYesThe test_id start_email_test returned — not the test address. Tests started without an account are kept 24 hours; an unknown id is refused as not found.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Addedv1.12.0

TDQS

A4.5/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations only declare read-only/idempotent/non-destructive, and the description adds substantial behavioral context beyond that: scoring_version semantics (v2 one-decimal, 10 only when nothing deducted), the difference between accepted_pct and inbox_pct, the estimates-not-promises caveat, and the requirement to relay result.dmarc.fix verbatim or fall back to fix_withheld. It also discloses provenance constraints for ai_read/ai_assessment deductions. This is unusually rich for a read tool.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness3/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The opening routing sentence is correctly front-loaded, but the remainder is one dense block of run-on sentences with stacked parentheticals and no structure, mixing return-value semantics, presentation rules, and scoring edge cases. Nearly every clause carries real information, yet the formatting makes it hard to scan during tool selection.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description must carry the full return-value burden, and it does: status enum, the fields inside a received result, version differences, estimate fields, and the ai_* deduction caveat. Nothing an agent needs in order to call this correctly or interpret the response is missing.

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% and the test_id description already explains that it is the id from start_email_test (not the address) and that account-less tests expire in 24 hours. The prose adds no further meaning about the parameter, so the baseline 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?

States a specific verb and resource (retrieve the result of an email test) and names the sibling it pairs with: 'Use this after start_email_test.' The enumerated status values (pending | received | expired | error) make the return contract concrete enough that an agent can distinguish it from list_email_tests or get_report without opening a schema.

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?

Gives an explicit trigger ('once the user says they sent the email') and an explicit re-invocation rule for the pending case ('ask the user to send it if they have not, then call again'). It also carves out what NOT to treat as a failure: 'A temperror is a lookup that did not complete, NOT a failure, and is never scored.'

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