PostureCheck MCP
Server Configuration
Describes the environment variables required to run the server.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| POSTURECHECK_API | No | Point at a different instance | https://posturecheck.io |
Instructions
Guidance the server publishes about itself, which clients place ahead of the tool catalog so the model reads it before choosing anything.
This server publishes no instructions, or was last inspected before Glama recorded them.
Capabilities
Features and capabilities supported by this server
Protocol revision2025-11-25
| Capability | Details |
|---|---|
| tools | {
"listChanged": true
} |
Tools
Functions exposed to the LLM to take actions
| Name | Description |
|---|---|
| scan_domainA | Check a domain's full security posture: SPF, DKIM, DMARC and MTA-STS email authentication, TLS certificate and protocol support, and HTTP security headers. Use this whenever asked whether a domain is configured securely, whether it can be spoofed, or to review a domain's email or web security. Returns live results from public DNS records and TLS handshakes. |
| check_tlsA | Inspect a domain's TLS configuration in detail: certificate validity and expiry, issuer, key strength, the full certificate chain including whether intermediates are missing, and which TLS protocol versions the server actually accepts. Use this for certificate problems, expiry checks, "which TLS versions are enabled", PCI DSS protocol questions, or when a site works in browsers but fails in curl or other clients. |
| analyse_spfA | Analyse a domain's SPF record: resolve the full include tree, count DNS lookups against the RFC 7208 limit of 10, identify which services are authorised to send mail, and flag misconfigurations such as multiple SPF records or a permissive +all. Use this for SPF PermError, "too many DNS lookups", or to find out which providers can send mail as a domain. |
Prompts
Interactive templates invoked by user choice
| Name | Description |
|---|---|
No prompts | |
Resources
Contextual data attached and managed by the client
| Name | Description |
|---|---|
No resources | |
TDQS
Scored across 3 tools
The tools share a common domain, but scan_domain is clearly a broad assessment while check_tls and analyse_spf are deep dives. Overlap exists, but the descriptions effectively guide selection for specific use cases.
All tools use a consistent verb_noun pattern with snake_case (scan_domain, check_tls, analyse_spf). The verbs differ but the structure is uniform and predictable.
Three tools is lean but appropriate for the narrow scope of domain security posture. It avoids bloat, though a few more specialized tools (e.g., for DKIM/DMARC) could round out the set.
The broad scan_domain covers email and web security comprehensively, while check_tls and analyse_spf provide deep dives for two key areas. Missing are specialized deep dives for DKIM and DMARC, but those are still accessible through scan_domain, so it's a minor gap.