dev.emailiq/email-intelligence
REMOTE · EMAILIQ.DEV
Email intelligence MCP: MX/SPF/DKIM/DMARC, score, enrichment. x402 on emailiq.dev/mcp.
Available components
Last scanned (13 hours ago)
Scores higher than 62% of remote servers
Reachable. Last reached 5 Nov 2026.
Category Security
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. Nothing on it is marked destructive, but we can't show that an anonymous caller can only read: full credit needs the server to list at least one tool and every tool to be verifiably read-only. We use a best-effort check of tool names and descriptions to tell read-only tools from tools that change things, so some genuinely read-only tools may not get full credit. Names that start with a read verb (get, list, read, search and similar) and accurate readOnlyHint annotations help. Meet that to earn full credit, or require authorisation. 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 Usability65
- AI-judged instruction clarity (good).Pass
- Context-footprint check failed: tool/resource definitions use about 317 tokens (~158/item across 2 items; 2 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 Management47
- Stability observed for 14 of 30 days with no destabilising changes; credit accrues until the full window elapses.Partial
Tool Coverage71
- 100% of tools have a non-trivial description (not blank, and not just the tool's name).Pass
- 0% of tool parameters carry a description.Fail
- Structured output schemas are declared (100% of tools); any adoption earns full credit.Pass
Tool Safety100
- No prompt-injection markers were found in the server instructions, tool names or descriptions we captured.Pass
- We read all 2 captured tool definition(s), and no name or description among them implies an irreversible operation.Pass
- An AI judge read all 3 captured unit(s) of tool text and found none that tries to manipulate the model reading it.Pass
Capabilities100
- Implements a supported MCP spec version (2025-11-25); the latest is 2026-07-28.Pass
Checks we ran (13)
- TLS certificate
- Authorization
- HTTPS
- HSTS header
- DNSSEC
- Transport
- Schema quality
- Stability
- Tool coverage
- Injection markers
- Destructive annotations
- Judged manipulation
- MCP protocol
Does not apply to this hosted endpoint (2)
- Supply Chain SecurityScored on package channels only. This is a hosted endpoint, so there is nothing to install or inspect.
- Provenance & TransparencyScored on package channels only. This is a hosted endpoint, so there is nothing to install or inspect.
The score does not measure everything. What the score does not measure →
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.
- 5 Nov 26 +1
No change was recorded against any check on this day. Stability & Change Management went from 43 to 47. That category is still filling its 30-day observation window: 13 days of observed history at the previous scan, 14 at this one. The score rises as the window fills, whether or not the server changes.
- 3 Nov 26 +1
No change was recorded against any check on this day. Stability & Change Management went from 37 to 40. That category is still filling its 30-day observation window: 11 days of observed history at the previous scan, 12 at this one. The score rises as the window fills, whether or not the server changes.
- 1 Nov 26 +1
No change was recorded against any check on this day. Stability & Change Management went from 30 to 33. That category is still filling its 30-day observation window: 9 days of observed history at the previous scan, 10 at this one. The score rises as the window fills, whether or not the server changes.
- 30 Oct 26 +1
No change was recorded against any check on this day. Stability & Change Management went from 23 to 27. That category is still filling its 30-day observation window: 7 days of observed history at the previous scan, 8 at this one. The score rises as the window fills, whether or not the server changes.
- 28 Oct 26 +1
No change was recorded against any check on this day. Stability & Change Management went from 17 to 20. That category is still filling its 30-day observation window: 5 days of observed history at the previous scan, 6 at this one. The score rises as the window fills, whether or not the server changes.
- 26 Oct 26 +1
No change was recorded against any check on this day. Stability & Change Management went from 10 to 13. That category is still filling its 30-day observation window: 3 days of observed history at the previous scan, 4 at this one. The score rises as the window fills, whether or not the server changes.
- 24 Oct 26 +1
No change was recorded against any check on this day. Stability & Change Management went from 3 to 7. That category is still filling its 30-day observation window: 1 days of observed history at the previous scan, 2 at this one. The score rises as the window fills, whether or not the server changes.
- 23 Oct 26 +7
- Authorization: unverified → partial ▲ security
- The server rewrote its instructions, which are the text every model session reads security
- Tool “analyze_email” rewrote its description, which is the text the model reads security
- Tool “analyze_email_batch” rewrote its description, which is the text the model reads security
- Schema quality: pass → fail ▼ functional
- Stability: unverified → 0.03 ▲ functional
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://emailiq.dev/mcp/
TLS valid
Negotiated TLS 1.3 with TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 .
| Subject | Issuer | Valid from | Valid until | Key | Signature | Serial |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| CN=emailiq.dev | CN=YE1,O=Let's Encrypt,C=US | 24 Sept 2026 | 23 Dec 2026 | ECDSA 256 | ECDSA-SHA384 | 58d71db2d4eec8ff64d8de73dccbbd29f8a |
| SANs: emailiq.dev | ||||||
| CN=YE1,O=Let's Encrypt,C=US (CA) | CN=Root YE,O=ISRG,C=US | 3 Sept 2025 | 2 Sept 2028 | ECDSA 384 | ECDSA-SHA384 | 5ddd70dd31f801c85c186a7a04b80afe |
| CN=Root YE,O=ISRG,C=US (CA) | CN=ISRG Root X2,O=Internet Security Research Group,C=US | 13 May 2026 | 2 Sept 2032 | ECDSA 384 | ECDSA-SHA384 | 872165fc34b6e5fba8add5b3705fb53a |
| CN=ISRG Root X2,O=Internet Security Research Group,C=US (CA) | CN=ISRG Root X1,O=Internet Security Research Group,C=US | 13 May 2026 | 2 Sept 2032 | ECDSA 384 | SHA256-RSA | 6c8f1dc727c7117f7baf853ac980f9cd |
Background: What to check on a remote MCP endpoint →
DNSSEC insecure
Validation of emailiq.dev. — Not signed
| Zone | DS | Keys | Algorithms | Outcome |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| . | Trust anchor | 20326, 38696 | 8, 8 | Verified |
| dev. | DS published | 60074 | 8 | Verified |
| emailiq.dev. | No DS | 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 |
Background: How OAuth 2.1 works in the 2026 MCP spec →
Transports 2 probes
| Transport | URL | Outcome | Status | Location |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| streamable-http | https://emailiq.dev/mcp/ | Verified | 200 | |
| http (plaintext) | http://emailiq.dev/mcp/ | HTTPS enforced | 301 | https://emailiq.dev/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_email ~118
Analyze one email: returns recommend first, then reasons, score, bounce_risk, syntax/MX/SPF/DKIM/DMARC, disposable, role, provider, enrichment. WHEN TO CALL: signup guard, disposable check, DMARC-before-outreach. WHEN NOT TO CALL: bulk lists >1 address (use analyze_email_batch); re-check of an address you already paid for (same payer cache is free). Price: /email/intelligence via x402 PAYMENT-SIGNATURE (canonical single price).
| Name | Type | Req | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| string | yes | – |
Structured output declared, but exposes no named fields.
No examples provided.
analyze_email_batch ~96
Analyze 2–25 emails in one call (same per-item schema as analyze_email; DNS/enrich cached within the batch; duplicates computed once). WHEN TO CALL: small multi-address checks from few domains. WHEN NOT TO CALL: single address (use analyze_email); lists >25 (split). Price: flat via x402 on /email/intelligence/batch. No free demo for batch.
| Name | Type | Req | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| emails | array | yes | – |
Structured output declared, but exposes no named fields.
No examples provided.
How do I install the dev.emailiq/email-intelligence MCP server?
dev.emailiq/email-intelligence is a hosted endpoint at https://emailiq.dev/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 · emailiq.dev
claude mcp add --transport http dev-emailiq-email-intelligence 'https://emailiq.dev/mcp/'
What is the dev.emailiq/email-intelligence MCP server?
dev.emailiq/email-intelligence is an MCP server listed in the public MCP registry as dev.emailiq/email-intelligence. Email intelligence MCP: MX/SPF/DKIM/DMARC, score, enrichment. x402 on emailiq.dev/mcp. This page covers its hosted endpoint (https://emailiq.dev/mcp/).
Is the dev.emailiq/email-intelligence MCP server safe to use?
dev.emailiq/email-intelligence scores 74 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 dev.emailiq/email-intelligence MCP server expose?
dev.emailiq/email-intelligence exposes 2 tools: analyze_email, analyze_email_batch. Their descriptions and schemas cost roughly 214 tokens of context every time the server is loaded.
Does the dev.emailiq/email-intelligence MCP server require authentication?
No. We connected to dev.emailiq/email-intelligence without credentials and it answered, so anything it exposes is reachable by anyone who knows the address.
Is the dev.emailiq/email-intelligence MCP server still maintained?
dev.emailiq/email-intelligence 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.
What did VerifyMCP test on the dev.emailiq/email-intelligence MCP server?
VerifyMCP ran 13 checks on dev.emailiq/email-intelligence, covering TLS certificate, Authorization, HTTPS, HSTS header and 9 more. Supply Chain Security and Provenance & Transparency do not apply to a hosted endpoint, so they were not tested. The score does not measure everything, and the scoring documentation lists what it leaves out.