Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
x402-mcp

x402-mcp

Official
by x402node
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
JavaScript
Remote

x402node_domain_email-security

Check email security posture by analyzing SPF, DKIM, and DMARC records for a domain. Detect missing or misconfigured authentication to improve deliverability and prevent phishing.

Instructions

Email security posture: SPF/DKIM/DMARC presence and parsed policy. Detects missing or misconfigured email authentication. Use ?domain=example.com. Built for email deliverability and phishing prevention.

Price: unknown on Base (auto-paid in USDC).

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "x402node_domain_email-security"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv1.0.0

TDQS

B3/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

No annotations provided. The description does not disclose whether the tool performs read-only DNS queries, requires permissions, or has rate limits. The mention of pricing ('auto-paid in USDC') is not about behavioral traits.

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?

The description is relatively short and front-loaded, but includes an unnecessary pricing line. Overall, it earns its place without being verbose.

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

Completeness2/5

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

No output schema, no annotations, and missing details on return format. The contradictory schema vs description leaves a significant gap for an agent to correctly invoke the tool.

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

Parameters1/5

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

The input schema has zero parameters, yet the description implies a 'domain' parameter. This contradiction is seriously misleading; the description adds no meaningful parameter semantics and instead creates confusion.

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 checks SPF/DKIM/DMARC for a domain, with specific verbs ('detects') and resource ('email security posture'). It distinguishes itself from siblings which are mostly unrelated Chinese astrology or utility tools.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines3/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description suggests using '?domain=example.com', indicating how to specify the domain, but lacks explicit when-to-use or alternatives. The input schema is empty, contradicting the stated parameter, which could confuse an agent.

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