Skip to main content
Glama
Baneado98

dnsdoctor

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.com

Returns 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 -all/~all? dangerous +all that lets anyone spoof you

DMARC

present? policy p=none/quarantine/reject — the Gmail/Yahoo 2024 bulk-sender requirement

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 tests

MIT.

Available Tools

1 tool
check_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.

ParametersJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
domainYesThe domain to check, e.g. 'example.com'. An email address or URL also works; the domain is extracted.
deepNoWhen true, also probes common DKIM selectors (slower, more DNS lookups). Recommended for a full deliverability check.

TDQS

A4.4/5.0
Behavior4/5

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.

Conciseness4/5

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.

Completeness5/5

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.

Parameters4/5

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.

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 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.

Usage Guidelines4/5

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. 1 tool updatev0.1.0
    • First observedcheck_email_deliverability

TDQS

A4.6/5.0
Disambiguation5/5

Only one tool exists, so there is no possibility for ambiguity between tools.

Naming Consistency5/5

With a single tool, naming consistency is inherently perfect.

Tool Count5/5

The server has a narrow, focused purpose (DNS health checks for email deliverability), and one well-scoped tool fully covers that purpose.

Completeness5/5

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

ActivityMaintained
ResponsivenessSyncing

Related MCP Connectors

Related MCP Servers

  • A
    license
    Not graded
    quality
    D
    maintenance
    A Model Context Protocol server that provides comprehensive domain analysis capabilities including WHOIS lookups, DNS record queries, and DNS health checking.
    14
    MIT
  • A
    license
    Not graded
    quality
    D
    maintenance
    An 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
  • A
    license
    A
    quality
    D
    maintenance
    MCP 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.
    17
    MIT
  • A
    license
    A
    quality
    A
    maintenance
    MCP 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.
    45
    119
    2
    MIT

Latest Blog Posts

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