F
licenseNot graded
qualityC
maintenanceAn MCP server that provides email verification, returning valid, invalid, or risky status with detailed checks and metadata. It enables verifying email addresses via a simple tool interface.
-
dilli-email-validation-api-server
Server Details
An MCP server that provides tools to validate an email address using Dilli Email Validation API.
If you are the author of this connector, you can claim ownership with GitHub, an HTTP challenge, or a DNS record. Claimed connector authors can inspect health checks, view analytics, and manage their listing.
- Status
- Healthy
- Last Tested
- Transport
- Streamable HTTP
- URL
Available Tools
1 toolvalidate_emailCInspect
Validates an email address using the DEVA API.
ParametersJSON Schema
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| Yes |
TDQS
C2.9/5.0
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. It does not mention whether the operation is read-only, what happens with invalid emails, or the return format. The only information is that it uses the DEVA API, which does not clarify side effects or outputs.
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 sentence with no unnecessary words, making it highly concise. However, it is under-specified, which harms its overall value, but for conciseness alone it earns a 4.
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?
The tool is simple (one parameter), but there is no output schema and no annotations. The description does not explain what the tool returns or any behavioral nuances, leaving the agent without critical information about the outcome of the validation. This is incomplete for an agent to use effectively.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema has one parameter 'email' with no description, and the tool description does not add any meaning beyond the parameter name. Coverage is 0%, so the description should compensate, but it merely restates the concept of an email address without adding format constraints or usage details.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states a specific verb ('validates') and resource ('email address'), making the tool's purpose clear. However, it does not elaborate on what kind of validation is performed (e.g., syntax, deliverability), so it falls short of a 5.
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 implies usage for validating email addresses but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives or any exclusions. Since there are no sibling tools, the absence of comparisons is acceptable, but the lack of contextual usage cues keeps it at a 3.
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
- First observed
validate_email
Frequently Asked Questions
Claiming proves that you control a remote MCP connector. It does not move, proxy, or interrupt the server.
Open the connector listing, choose Claim ownership, and sign in to Glama.
Complete one verification method:
GitHub identity — fastest for official registry listings. For a namespace such as
io.github.alice/server, link the matching GitHub user, then choose Claim with GitHub. An organization namespace such asio.github.acme/serveralso needs that organization to have installed the Glama AI GitHub App and approved its permissions, because GitHub discloses organization membership only to apps it has installed. Use HTTP or DNS when it has not.HTTP challenge — works when you can deploy a public file. Generate a token, publish the exact JSON Glama shows at
/.well-known/glama.jsonon the same origin as the connector, then choose Check HTTP challenge.DNS challenge — works when you control DNS but cannot change the server. Generate a token, create the exact TXT record Glama shows, wait for it to propagate, then choose Check DNS challenge.
After verification, Glama sends a confirmation email and gives you access to listing details, thumbnails, health checks, and analytics. Keep the HTTP file or DNS record in place: Glama periodically checks it and ownership remains verified while the token is discoverable.
The HTTP ownership file has this structure:
{
"$schema": "https://glama.ai/mcp/schemas/connector.json",
"claim": "glama_claim_..."
}Claim tokens are opaque, stable, and bound to the signed-in Glama account. They contain no email address or other personal information. If Glama can no longer discover a verified HTTP or DNS token, it starts a seven-day grace period before removing claim-based access. Restore the same token during that period to keep ownership verified. Never publish an email address, Glama session token, GitHub token, or connector credential as ownership proof.
If verification fails, confirm that you copied the current token exactly. The HTTP file must be public, return valid JSON with a successful HTTP response, and stay on the connector's origin. DNS changes may need more time to propagate. A claim cannot transfer to a different origin or hostname: if the connector target changes, Glama starts the grace period and the new target must be claimed separately after the previous claim is released.
For a connector linked to the official MCP Registry, registry updates continue to replace its name, description, and URL by default. After claiming, open Manage connector and enable Use Glama listing details as the source of truth if edits made on Glama should be preserved. Categories and thumbnails are always managed on Glama; registry linkage and technical connection settings continue to sync.
Control your server's listing on Glama, including description and metadata
Access analytics and receive server usage reports
Get monitoring and health status updates for your server
Feature your server to boost visibility and reach more users
To improve your MCP server's ranking:
Claim ownership of the server listing
Complete the server profile with an accurate description and thumbnail
Provide a test profile so Glama can connect to and evaluate the server
Keep tool definitions clear and complete to earn a high Tool Definition Quality Score (TDQS)
Route real usage through the Glama Gateway; more recorded successful server uses also improve the ranking
For users:
Full audit trail – every tool call is logged with inputs and outputs for compliance and debugging
Granular tool control – enable or disable individual tools per connector to limit what your AI agents can do
Centralized credential management – store and rotate API keys and OAuth tokens in one place
Change alerts – get notified when a connector changes its schema, adds or removes tools, or updates tool definitions, so nothing breaks silently
For server owners:
Proven adoption – public usage metrics on your listing show real-world traction and build trust with prospective users
Tool-level analytics – see which tools are being used most, helping you prioritize development and documentation
Direct user feedback – users can report issues and suggest improvements through the listing, giving you a channel you would not have otherwise
The connector status is unhealthy when Glama is unable to successfully connect to the server. This can happen for several reasons:
The server is experiencing an outage
The URL of the server is wrong
Credentials required to access the server are missing or invalid
If you are the owner of this MCP connector and would like to make modifications to the listing, including providing test credentials for accessing the server, please contact support@glama.ai.
Discussions
No comments yet. Be the first to start the discussion!
Related MCP Connectors
An MCP server that provides email capabilities, hosted on Alpic platform
An MCP server that provides email capabilities, hosted on Alpic platform
An MCP server that provides email capabilities, hosted on Alpic platform
An MCP server to send personalised direct mail.
Related MCP Servers
- FlicenseAqualityBmaintenanceAn MCP server that exposes a verify_email tool for checking email syntax, disposable domains, and MX records, returning a structured validity result.1-
- FlicenseNot gradedqualityCmaintenanceMCP server that exposes an email verification tool, returning verdicts of valid, invalid, or risky with reasons.-
- AlicenseAqualityCmaintenanceEmail validation MCP server using MailboxValidator API to determine validity of an email address.3731MIT
Try in Browser
Glama MCP Gateway
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
TDQS
B3.4/5.0
Disambiguation5/5
With only one tool, there is absolutely no possibility of confusion between tools. The purpose is clear and singular.
Naming Consistency5/5
A single tool named 'validate_email' follows a clear verb_noun pattern and is internally consistent. There are no conflicting naming conventions to evaluate.
Tool Count4/5
The server has only one tool, which is slightly below the typical 3-15 range, but it is entirely appropriate for a narrowly focused email validation service. The count feels reasonable rather than inadequate.
Completeness4/5
The server covers the core email validation use case completely. Minor gaps like batch validation or additional email-related utilities are not present, but for a single-purpose API wrapper, the surface is adequate.