dnsdoctor
Checks whether a domain's email configuration meets Gmail's 2024 bulk-sender requirements, particularly DMARC policy.
Click on "Install Server".
Wait a few minutes for the server to deploy. Once ready, it will show a "Started" state.
In the chat, type
@followed by the MCP server name and your instructions, e.g., "@dnsdoctorCheck email deliverability for mydomain.com"
That's it! The server will respond to your query, and you can continue using it as needed.
Here is a step-by-step guide with screenshots.
dnsdoctor 🩺
Will email from a domain reach the inbox — or the spam folder? dnsdoctor does a live SPF / DKIM / DMARC / MX check for any domain and returns a HEALTHY / NEEDS_ATTENTION / AT_RISK verdict with the exact DNS records to add or fix.
It is both an MCP server (for Claude, Cursor and other AI agents) and a pay-per-call x402 HTTP API.
Why it exists: an AI agent setting up email, debugging "my mail goes to spam", or vetting a domain cannot resolve live DNS by itself. dnsdoctor does, and turns it into an actionable answer — including the Gmail/Yahoo 2024 bulk-sender requirements (DMARC).
MCP server (free)
{
"mcpServers": {
"dnsdoctor": { "command": "npx", "args": ["-y", "dnsdoctor-mcp"] }
}
}Tool: check_email_deliverability(domain, deep?).
Related MCP server: HeaderHawk
Free HTTP API
GET https://dnsdoctor.vercel.app/check?domain=github.comReturns SPF/DMARC/MX status, a deliverability score and concrete fixes. Rate-limited to 30/hour/IP.
Pay-per-call (x402)
GET https://dnsdoctor.vercel.app/pro/check?domain=<domain>Gated by x402: your agent pays $0.02 USDC (on Base) per call automatically — no sign-up, no API key. The deep tier also probes common DKIM selectors. The server holds no private key; payment settles on-chain to the operator wallet.
What it checks
Check | What & why |
SPF | present? ends in |
DMARC | present? policy |
DKIM | probes common selectors for a published signing key (deep mode) |
MX | can the domain receive mail at all, and where |
Develop
npm install
npm run dev:http # local HTTP API on :8080
npm test # live engine testsMIT.
Available Tools
1 toolcheck_email_deliverabilityA
Check a domain's LIVE email-authentication and DNS health (SPF, DKIM, DMARC, MX) and get a deliverability verdict: will mail FROM this domain reach the inbox or land in spam, is it spoofable, and EXACTLY which DNS record to add/fix. Resolves real DNS right now. Use this when setting up sending email for a domain, debugging why mail goes to spam, vetting a domain before sending, or checking Gmail/Yahoo 2024+ bulk-sender requirements. Returns HEALTHY / NEEDS_ATTENTION / AT_RISK with a score and concrete fixes.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| domain | Yes | The domain to check, e.g. 'example.com'. An email address or URL also works; the domain is extracted. | |
| deep | No | When true, also probes common DKIM selectors (slower, more DNS lookups). Recommended for a full deliverability check. |
TDQS
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavior. It states it resolves real DNS live, returns verdicts and fixes, and mentions the deep parameter behavior (slower). It does not mention side effects, but the operation is a read-only check.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single paragraph but is well-structured: first states purpose and verdict types, then use cases, then return values. No filler, but could be split for readability. Still efficient.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no output schema, the description adequately explains the return values (HEALTHY, NEEDS_ATTENTION, AT_RISK with score and fixes). It covers purpose, usage, parameters, and behavior completely.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
With 100% schema coverage, baseline is 3. The description adds context that deep involves probing common DKIM selectors and is recommended for full checks, which is useful beyond schema descriptions.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool checks a domain's email authentication and DNS health (SPF, DKIM, DMARC, MX) and returns a deliverability verdict. The action is specific (check) and the resource is a domain. Use cases are listed.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description explicitly lists four use cases: setting up sending, debugging spam, vetting a domain, and checking bulk-sender requirements. No exclusions or alternatives are given, but no sibling tools exist, so guidance is sufficient.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Tool Schema Changelog
Recent tool additions, removals, and schema changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
1 tool update
v0.1.0- First observed
check_email_deliverability
TDQS
Only one tool exists, so there is no possibility for ambiguity between tools.
With a single tool, naming consistency is inherently perfect.
The server has a narrow, focused purpose (DNS health checks for email deliverability), and one well-scoped tool fully covers that purpose.
The single tool comprehensively covers the key aspects of email deliverability checks (SPF, DKIM, DMARC, MX) and provides actionable fixes, leaving no obvious gaps.
Maintenance
Related MCP Connectors
Remote MCP server: 19 domain-hygiene and email-auth tools (DNS, SPF, DMARC, DKIM, TLS).
ドメインの設定を調べる MCP サーバー。SPF / DKIM / DMARC・DNS・SSL 証明書・セキュリティヘッダ・サブドメイン・類似ドメインを、公開情報だけで確認します。登録不要・無料。
DNS and email security scanner with 79 MCP tools for SPF, DMARC, DNSSEC, SSL, and brand audits.
Scan, fix and verify DNS: SPF, DMARC, DKIM, propagation, DNS health, expiry. Validated fixes.
Related MCP Servers
- AlicenseNot gradedqualityDmaintenanceA Model Context Protocol server that provides comprehensive domain analysis capabilities including WHOIS lookups, DNS record queries, and DNS health checking.14MIT
- AlicenseNot gradedqualityDmaintenanceAn advanced email security analysis MCP server for real-time phishing detection, comprehensive header analysis, and threat intelligence integration. It enables users to extract indicators of compromise and validate email authentication protocols like DKIM, SPF, and DMARC.MIT
- AlicenseAqualityDmaintenanceMCP server for email deliverability: validate SPF/DKIM/DMARC/BIMI, check blacklists, test SMTP/IMAP, look up DNS, and generate ready-to-deploy records for any major email provider. Ships with two one-click prompts (audit-deliverability, setup-dns). Public, no auth.17MIT
- AlicenseAqualityAmaintenanceMCP server for IntoDNS.ai providing 36 free tools for DNS, DMARC, SPF, DKIM, BIMI, DNSSEC, MTA-STS, FCrDNS, blacklist and email security checks. Citation-grade report snapshots with content hashes. No API key required.451192MIT
Latest Blog Posts
- Who's Calling? MCP Hosts Are an Identity Blind Spot (And the Spec Knows It)By Om-Shree-0709 on .mcpAgent IdentityOAuth 2.1
- Your AI Chatbot Just Exposed Your CEO's Salary to an InternBy Om-Shree-0709 on .Agent IdentityMCP SecurityOAuth Delegation
- Why MCP Servers Need Execution Sandboxing (And Why Your Current Stack Isn't Enough)By Om-Shree-0709 on .Agentic AiPrompt InjectionWebAssembly
MCP directory API
We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.
curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/Baneado98/dnsdoctor'
If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server