Powerline Email Tools
REMOTE · POWERLINE.AI
Email deliverability checks: SPF, DKIM, DMARC, BIMI, MTA-STS, blacklists, headers, spam words
Available components
Last scanned (10 hours ago)
Scores higher than 87% of remote servers
Reachable. Last reached 5 Nov 2026.
Category Marketing and SEO
How this component scores in each security and reliability category. Every signal is checked automatically against the live server, and we only credit what we can confirm. How we score → Why this is hard to score →
Endpoint Security74
- The endpoint's TLS certificate is valid, in date, and uses a strong key. View diagnostics → Pass
- No authorisation is required to call this server. Every tool declares its destructiveHint and none is destructive, so open access doesn't expose one. See how to fix → View diagnostics → Partial
- HTTPS is enforced; there's no plaintext access path. View diagnostics → Pass
- HSTS check failed: the Strict-Transport-Security header is absent. See how to fix → View diagnostics → Fail
- DNSSEC check failed: this domain isn't protected by DNSSEC. See how to fix → View diagnostics → Fail
Transport & Reachability100
- Verified streamable-http transport via a live MCP handshake. View diagnostics → Pass
Schema Quality & AI Usability76
- AI-judged instruction clarity (excellent).Pass
- Context-footprint check failed: tool/resource definitions use about 735 tokens (~147/item across 5 items; 5 tools + 0 resources), over budget; trim descriptions and params. See how to fix → Fail
- Usage-examples check failed: none of the tools include examples. See how to fix → Fail
Stability & Change Management100
- No destabilizing schema changes in the last 30 days.Pass
Tool Coverage94
- 100% of tools have a non-trivial description (not blank, and not just the tool's name).Pass
- 82% of tool parameters carry a description.Partial
Tool Safety100
- No prompt-injection markers were found in the server instructions, tool names or descriptions we captured.Pass
- We read all 5 captured tool definition(s), and no name or description among them implies an irreversible operation.Pass
- An AI judge read all 6 captured unit(s) of tool text and found none that tries to manipulate the model reading it.Pass
Capabilities60
- Spec-recency check failed: implements MCP spec 2025-06-18; the latest is 2026-07-28. See how to fix → Fail
Every change we have recorded for this component, newest first. Security-relevant changes are always shown. ▲ marks a change for the better, ▼ a change for the worse; unmarked changes are neutral.
- 1 Nov 26 0
- Stability: 0.97 → pass security
- 31 Oct 26 +1
No change was recorded against any check on this day. Stability & Change Management went from 93 to 97. That category is still filling its 30-day observation window: 28 days of observed history at the previous scan, 29 at this one. The score rises as the window fills, whether or not the server changes.
- 29 Oct 26 +1
No change was recorded against any check on this day. Stability & Change Management went from 87 to 90. That category is still filling its 30-day observation window: 26 days of observed history at the previous scan, 27 at this one. The score rises as the window fills, whether or not the server changes.
- 27 Oct 26 +1
No change was recorded against any check on this day. Stability & Change Management went from 80 to 83. That category is still filling its 30-day observation window: 24 days of observed history at the previous scan, 25 at this one. The score rises as the window fills, whether or not the server changes.
- 25 Oct 26 +1
No change was recorded against any check on this day. Stability & Change Management went from 73 to 77. That category is still filling its 30-day observation window: 22 days of observed history at the previous scan, 23 at this one. The score rises as the window fills, whether or not the server changes.
- 22 Oct 26 +1
No change was recorded against any check on this day. Stability & Change Management went from 63 to 67. That category is still filling its 30-day observation window: 19 days of observed history at the previous scan, 20 at this one. The score rises as the window fills, whether or not the server changes.
- 20 Oct 26 +1
No change was recorded against any check on this day. Stability & Change Management went from 57 to 60. That category is still filling its 30-day observation window: 17 days of observed history at the previous scan, 18 at this one. The score rises as the window fills, whether or not the server changes.
- 18 Oct 26 +1
No change was recorded against any check on this day. Stability & Change Management went from 50 to 53. That category is still filling its 30-day observation window: 15 days of observed history at the previous scan, 16 at this one. The score rises as the window fills, whether or not the server changes.
Diagnostic detail from the automated scan of this channel: what the scanner observed at each step, so you can see exactly where a check passed or failed. It is informational only and never changes the trust score.
Captured 5 Nov 2026 · Probed https://powerline.ai/mcp
TLS valid
Negotiated TLS 1.3 with TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 .
| Subject | Issuer | Valid from | Valid until | Key | Signature | Serial |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| CN=powerline.ai | CN=WE1,O=Google Trust Services,C=US | 27 Oct 2026 | 25 Jan 2027 | ECDSA 256 | ECDSA-SHA256 | 9323a96262e2d3410ee4975cc0f1a9d9 |
| SANs: powerline.ai | ||||||
| CN=WE1,O=Google Trust Services,C=US (CA) | CN=GTS Root R4,O=Google Trust Services LLC,C=US | 13 Dec 2023 | 20 Feb 2029 | ECDSA 256 | ECDSA-SHA384 | 7ff31977972c224a76155d13b6d685e3 |
| CN=GTS Root R4,O=Google Trust Services LLC,C=US (CA) | CN=GlobalSign Root CA,OU=Root CA,O=GlobalSign nv-sa,C=BE | 15 Nov 2023 | 28 Jan 2028 | ECDSA 384 | SHA256-RSA | 7fe530bf331343bedd821610493d8a1b |
Background: What to check on a remote MCP endpoint →
DNSSEC insecure
Validation of powerline.ai. — Not signed
| Zone | DS | Keys | Algorithms | Outcome |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| . | trust_anchor | 20326, 38696 | 8, 8 | Verified |
| ai. | present | 1814, 3799 | 8, 8 | Verified |
| powerline.ai. | absent | Unsigned (proven) parent-signed NSEC/NSEC3 proves an unsigned delegation |
Authentication No authorisation required
The endpoint answered without asking for a token. Anyone who knows the URL can reach it.
| Result | No authorisation required |
|---|---|
| HTTP status | 200 |
| Header | Value |
|---|---|
| x-content-type-options | nosniff |
Background: How OAuth 2.1 works in the 2026 MCP spec →
Transports 2 probes
| Transport | URL | Outcome | Status | Location |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| streamable-http | https://powerline.ai/mcp | Verified | 200 | |
| http (plaintext) | http://powerline.ai/mcp | HTTPS enforced | 301 | https://powerline.ai/mcp |
The tools this component advertises to a client, with an estimated token cost for each. Expand a tool to see its parameters and schema. The per-tool counts are indicative and are not scored directly; the schema's total context footprint is one signal in Schema Quality & AI Usability. A tool's description is untrusted text the model reads on every call, which is what makes this list a security surface and not just an inventory: how tool poisoning works →
analyze_headers Email header analyzer ~80
Parse raw email headers: the Received delivery path with per-hop delays, the receiving server's SPF/DKIM/DMARC verdicts, DMARC alignment of the From domain, DKIM signatures, the sending IP, and bulk-sender requirements such as one-click unsubscribe.
| Name | Type | Req | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| headers | string | yes | The raw header block (everything above the message body). |
No output schema declared.
No examples provided.
check_blacklists DNS blacklist lookup ~93
Check an IPv4 address against about 18 IP blacklists (SpamCop, Barracuda, UCEPROTECT, PSBL, Mailspike, ...) or a domain against domain blacklists. Each list is verified with its test entries first, so lists that refuse public resolvers (such as Spamhaus) are reported as unavailable rather than clean.
| Name | Type | Req | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| target | string | yes | IPv4 address or domain. |
No output schema declared.
No examples provided.
check_domain Email domain health check ~145
Run every email-authentication check on a domain (SPF, DKIM, DMARC, MX, MTA-STS, TLS-RPT, BIMI, plus domain and mail-server blacklists) and return a score out of 100, per-check findings and a prioritized fix list. Use this first when asked whether a domain is set up correctly to send email.
| Name | Type | Req | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| dkim_selector | string | – | DKIM selector (the s= value from a DKIM-Signature header). Optional; common selectors are tried when omitted. |
| domain | string | yes | Domain name, e.g. example.com. URLs and email addresses are accepted; the domain part is used. |
No output schema declared.
No examples provided.
check_record Check one DNS email record ~184
Look up and validate a single email DNS record for a domain, explaining each tag. record is one of spf, dmarc, dkim, bimi, mta-sts, tls-rpt, mx. SPF counts the 10-lookup limit; DMARC checks policy, reporting and external report authorization; DKIM sizes the key; MTA-STS fetches the policy file and compares it with the MX hosts; BIMI checks the logo (SVG Tiny PS) and mark certificate.
| Name | Type | Req | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| domain | string | yes | Domain name, e.g. example.com. URLs and email addresses are accepted; the domain part is used. |
| policy | string | – | MTA-STS only: policy file text to check instead of fetching it. Optional. |
| record | string | yes | – |
| selector | string | – | DKIM or BIMI selector. Optional. |
No output schema declared.
No examples provided.
check_spam_words Email copy spam check ~104
Scan an email subject and body (plain text or HTML) for spam-trigger phrases by category, ALL-CAPS, exclamation runs, emoji, URL shorteners and image-heavy HTML. Returns a low/medium/high risk reading and, optionally, a rule-based rewrite.
| Name | Type | Req | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| body | string | – | Plain text or HTML. |
| rewrite | boolean | – | Also return a calmer rewrite of the subject (and of a plain-text body). |
| subject | string | – | – |
No output schema declared.
No examples provided.
How do I install the Powerline Email Tools MCP server?
Powerline Email Tools is a hosted endpoint at https://powerline.ai/mcp, so there is nothing to install locally. Ready-made configuration for Claude, Cursor, VS Code, Codex and 5 more is on this page, copied from each client's own documentation.
remote · powerline.ai
claude mcp add --transport http ai-powerline-email-tools 'https://powerline.ai/mcp'
What is the Powerline Email Tools MCP server?
Powerline Email Tools is an MCP server listed in the public MCP registry as ai.powerline/email-tools. Email deliverability checks: SPF, DKIM, DMARC, BIMI, MTA-STS, blacklists, headers, spam words. This page covers its hosted endpoint (https://powerline.ai/mcp).
Is the Powerline Email Tools MCP server safe to use?
Powerline Email Tools scores 83 out of 100 on VerifyMCP. That is a record of what we were able to check automatically, not an endorsement. The category breakdown on this page shows every signal behind the number, including the ones we could not confirm.
What tools does the Powerline Email Tools MCP server expose?
Powerline Email Tools exposes 5 tools: check_domain, check_record, check_blacklists, analyze_headers, check_spam_words. Their descriptions and schemas cost roughly 606 tokens of context every time the server is loaded.
Does the Powerline Email Tools MCP server require authentication?
No. We connected to Powerline Email Tools without credentials and it answered, so anything it exposes is reachable by anyone who knows the address.
Is the Powerline Email Tools MCP server still maintained?
Powerline Email Tools is still listed as active in the MCP registry. We last reached this channel on 5 November 2026. Those dates come from our own scans of the registry and the channel itself, not from anything the publisher announced.