F
licenseNot graded
qualityC
maintenanceProvides email verification as a tool, performing syntax validation, domain verification, and disposable-domain risk detection.
-
mailverdict
Server Details
Keyless email checks: disposable, role, and free-provider detection, MX, and typo suggestions.
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
- Repository
- mailverdict/mailverdict
- GitHub Stars
- 0
- Server Listing
- mailverdict
Available Tools
2 toolscheck_domainAInspect
Check a domain: disposable/burner list membership, free-provider status, typo suggestion, MX records.
ParametersJSON Schema
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| mx | No | Look up MX records (default true). | |
| domain | Yes | The domain to check. |
TDQS
A3.6/5.0
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden. It states the checks performed but lacks details on behavior such as return format, error handling, or whether it is read-only. This is a gap for a tool with no annotations.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence that front-loads the core purpose and lists specific features. Every word earns its place with no verbosity.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's moderate complexity and lack of output schema, the description enumerates the key checks. However, it does not specify the return structure or the format of typo suggestions, leaving some ambiguity.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema provides descriptions for both parameters, so the description does not need to add much. The description's mention of MX records maps to the 'mx' parameter, adding minimal value beyond the schema. Baseline 3 applies due to 100% schema coverage.
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 verb 'check' and the resource 'domain', and enumerates specific checks (disposable/burner, free-provider, typo suggestion, MX records). This distinguishes it from the sibling tool 'check_email', which presumably checks email addresses.
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 lists what the tool checks but does not explicitly state when to use it versus the sibling tool 'check_email'. There are no when-not or alternative directives, relying on implied differentiation.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
check_emailAInspect
Check an email address: syntax, disposable/burner domain, role account, free provider, typo suggestion, MX records. Returns result (deliverable|undeliverable|risky|unknown), reason, score 0-100, and per-signal booleans.
ParametersJSON Schema
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| mx | No | Look up MX records (default true). | |
| Yes | The email address to check. |
TDQS
A3.8/5.0
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It lists the checks performed and return fields (result, reason, score, booleans), but does not disclose side effects, auth needs, or whether it is read-only.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is two sentences: the first lists capabilities, the second explains the return payload. It is front-loaded, efficient, and contains no unnecessary words.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
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 return values (result, reason, score, per-signal booleans). However, it lacks details on error handling or edge cases like invalid email formats.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100% with descriptions for both parameters. The description adds context by grouping checks but does not provide additional semantics beyond what the schema already states.
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 it checks an email address for syntax, disposable domains, role accounts, free providers, typo suggestions, and MX records, which is specific and distinguishes it from the sibling tool 'check_domain'.
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 use for email validation but does not explicitly state when to use this versus 'check_domain' or provide exclusion criteria. The intended context is clear but not formally outlined.
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.
2 tool updates
- First observed
check_domain - First observed
check_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
Verify emails — deliverability, disposable/role/free detection, MX validity, domain age.
Verify emails and domains for routing, disposable providers, role accounts, and SMTP risk.
Fast email validation at the edge: syntax, MX records, disposable-domain detection.
Verify email deliverability by SMTP. Catch-all/disposable/role detection. EU-hosted, GDPR-ready.
Related MCP Servers
- FlicenseNot gradedqualityCmaintenanceProvides email verification as an MCP tool, checking format, disposable domains, and mail server availability with structured results.-
- FlicenseNot gradedqualityDmaintenanceComprehensive email validation MCP server that checks syntax, MX records, disposable domains, role-based accounts, SPF/DKIM, typo suggestions, and risk scoring.-
- AlicenseAqualityAmaintenanceEnables auditing any domain's email deliverability and DNS health, including SPF, DKIM, DMARC, MX, mail provider, DNS blacklist status, catch-all, domain age, and a deliverability score.1941MIT
Try in Browser
Glama MCP Gateway
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
TDQS
A3.7/5.0
Disambiguation4/5
The two tools are clearly distinguished by input type: check_domain accepts a domain, check_email accepts an email address. There is some overlap in domain-level checks, but the different inputs and return structures prevent confusion.
Naming Consistency5/5
Both tools follow the consistent verb_noun pattern: check_domain and check_email, making them predictable and easy to understand.
Tool Count3/5
With only two tools, the server feels slightly under-scoped for a full email verification service. However, each tool packs significant functionality, so the count is borderline acceptable.
Completeness3/5
The tools cover domain and email reputation checks including disposable detection, MX records, and syntax validation. Missing a common SMTP verification step, which is a notable gap for email verification servers.