Dechonet MCP

Email Header Analysis

email_header_analysis

Read-onlyIdempotent

Parse raw email headers to trace the delivery path, check SPF/DKIM/DMARC results, measure hop delays, and identify non-TLS hops. Use it to diagnose spoofing, delays, or lost mail in an already delivered message.

Instructions

Parse raw email headers to reconstruct the delivery path (each Received hop in order), extract SPF/DKIM/DMARC authentication results, measure per-hop delays, and flag unencrypted (non-TLS) hops. Use this to diagnose a specific message that was already delivered — spoofing, delays, or where mail was lost. Use email_auth instead to assess a domain's sending configuration before sending. Read-only; requires no API key; rate-limited. INPUT is the full raw header block. OUTPUT is a text report containing: the ordered hop route, per-mechanism auth results (pass/fail), detected inter-hop delays, and the encryption status of each hop.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`headers`	Yes	The complete raw email header block, copied verbatim — every line from the first 'Received:'/'From:' down to the blank line before the body. Paste as-is, including folded continuation lines; do not include the message body.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`kpis`	No	Key metrics as label/value pairs
`grade`	No	Letter grade (A+ to F) when the tool grades the target
`score`	No	0-100 score when the tool scores the target
`issues`	No	Detected problems, severity-rated
`status`	Yes	Overall verdict, e.g. 'good' \| 'warning' \| 'bad' \| 'info' \| 'unknown'
`actions`	No	Recommended next actions, most important first
`summary`	No	One-paragraph interpretation of the result
`reportUrl`	Yes	Human-facing interactive report for this exact lookup on dechonet.com

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed1 schema field changedv1.1.0Sep 8, 2026

changedOutput schema / (root)

Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+  "$schema": "http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#",
+  "additionalProperties": false,
+  "properties": {
+    "actions": {
+      "description": "Recommended next actions, most important first",
+      "items": {
+        "type": "string"
+      },
+      "type": "array"
+    },
+    "grade": {
+      "description": "Letter grade (A+ to F) when the tool grades the target",
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "issues": {
+      "description": "Detected problems, severity-rated",
+      "items": {
+        "additionalProperties": false,
+        "properties": {
+          "key": {
+            "type": "string"
+          },
+          "severity": {
+            "type": "string"
+          }
+        },
+        "required": [
+          "severity",
+          "key"
+        ],
+        "type": "object"
+      },
+      "type": "array"
+    },
+    "kpis": {
+      "description": "Key metrics as label/value pairs",
+      "items": {
+        "additionalProperties": false,
+        "properties": {
+          "label": {
+            "type": "string"
+          },
+          "value": {
+            "type": "string"
+          }
+        },
+        "required": [
+          "label",
+          "value"
+        ],
+        "type": "object"
+      },
+      "type": "array"
+    },
+    "reportUrl": {
+      "description": "Human-facing interactive report for this exact lookup on dechonet.com",
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "score": {
+      "description": "0-100 score when the tool scores the target",
+      "type": "number"
+    },
+    "status": {
+      "description": "Overall verdict, e.g. 'good' | 'warning' | 'bad' | 'info' | 'unknown'",
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "summary": {
+      "description": "One-paragraph interpretation of the result",
+      "type": "string"
+    }
+  },
+  "required": [
+    "status",
+    "reportUrl"
+  ],
+  "type": "object"
+}

Changed1 schema field changedv1.0.3Jun 17, 2026

changedInput schema / properties / headers / description

Previous value: -"Raw email headers to analyze (paste the full header text)"New value: +"The complete raw email header block, copied verbatim — every line from the first 'Received:'/'From:' down to the blank line before the body. Paste as-is, including folded continuation lines; do not include the message body."

First observedv0.1.0Jun 17, 2026

TDQS

A5/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

The description discloses additional behavioral details beyond the annotations, including that the tool is read-only, requires no API key, and is rate-limited. It also outlines the output format (text report) and input instructions, giving a transparent picture of what happens when invoked.

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?

The description is thorough but well-structured, front-loading the primary purpose and then providing usage context, alternative, and expected output. No redundant or irrelevant content; every sentence adds 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?

With only one parameter, the description covers all necessary context: function, input format, output details, usage scenario, alternative, and operational constraints (rate limit). It is complete for an agent to decide when and how to invoke the tool correctly.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters5/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The schema description provides extensive detail about the single parameter 'headers', including exactly what to include (first 'Received:'/'From:' line down to blank line), how to paste (verbatim, with folded continuation lines), and what to exclude (message body). The tool description also reiterates 'INPUT is the full raw header block', reinforcing the meaning.

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's function: parsing raw email headers to reconstruct delivery path, extract SPF/DKIM/DMARC results, measure per-hop delays, and flag non-TLS hops. It also distinguishes the use case from the sibling email_auth tool, making its purpose unambiguous.

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?

The description explicitly specifies when to use this tool ('diagnose a specific message that was already delivered') and when to use the alternative email_auth ('assess a domain's sending configuration before sending'). This provides clear guidance on selection.

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

Deploy Server