Skip to main content
Glama
kienpt91

founder-toolkit-mcp

by kienpt91
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

Email authentication check (SPF, DKIM, DMARC, MX)

email_auth_check
Read-onlyIdempotent

Check a sending domain's SPF, DMARC, DKIM, and MX records via DNS. Use it to diagnose spam placement, validate a new domain, or produce exact DNS fixes.

Instructions

Check a sending domain's SPF, DMARC, DKIM and MX records with DNS lookups made from this machine (no third-party API is called; queries go through your resolver to the domain's DNS servers, and include/redirect domains named in its SPF record are looked up too, up to 25 queries). Use it when mail lands in spam, before launching a sending domain, or to produce exact DNS fixes. Pass dkimSelectors (the s= value from a real message's DKIM-Signature header) for a definitive DKIM answer; without them only common selectors are probed, which cannot prove DKIM is absent. No rate limit beyond your resolver's.

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
domainYesSending domain to check, e.g. example.com (a URL is reduced to its host).
dkimSelectorsNoDKIM selectors to look up (the s= value in a DKIM-Signature header of a real message). If omitted, a short list of common selectors is probed, which cannot prove DKIM is absent.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

A4.7/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Adds substantial behavior beyond the annotations: lookups run from this machine via the user's resolver (not a third-party API), SPF include/redirect chains are followed up to 25 queries, and no rate limit exists beyond the resolver's. Annotations only say read-only/open-world/idempotent, which would not convey any of this.

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

Conciseness4/5

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

Front-loads what is checked and how lookups happen, then triggers, then the DKIM caveat. Parenthetical detail is dense but each clause adds operational meaning; slightly long-winded in the resolver explanation.

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 two-parameter read-only tool with no output schema, it covers execution model, query budget, and the main failure mode (unproven DKIM). It stops short of describing the shape of results (per-record pass/fail, recommended fixes), though the trigger sentence about 'exact DNS fixes' implies it.

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 the baseline is 3; the description earns extra by explaining the semantic consequence of omitting dkimSelectors (only common selectors probed, so DKIM absence cannot be proven) and where the value comes from (s= in a real message's DKIM-Signature header).

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 (check) plus the exact resources inspected (SPF, DMARC, DKIM, MX), and the title/sibling set makes it distinguishable from the SEO/MRR tools. An agent can tell this is a DNS email-auth diagnostic without opening the 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 three concrete trigger scenarios (mail landing in spam, before launching a sending domain, producing exact DNS fixes) and explicitly names the alternative path for definitive DKIM results (pass dkimSelectors). No exclusions are stated, but none are needed for a read-only diagnostic.

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