Email Check
Server Details
Fast email validation at the edge: syntax, MX records, disposable-domain detection.
- Status
- Healthy
- Last Tested
- Transport
- Streamable HTTP
- URL
Available Tools
1 toolrunCInspect
Fast email validation at the edge: syntax, MX records, disposable-domain detection.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| input | Yes |
TDQS
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With empty annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It lists what the tool checks but does not mention return format, error behavior, synchronous/asynchronous execution, or side effects, and there is no output schema to fill that gap.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
A single compact sentence that front-loads the core purpose and lists the concrete validation checks. There is no filler, repetition, or unnecessary detail.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The description explains what the tool does but leaves the input contract and output behavior entirely unspecified. With no annotations and no output schema, an agent would struggle to construct a correct request or interpret the result.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description does not explain how to fill the required 'input' field. The schema shows an object with arbitrary string property names and arbitrary values, which is meaningless without additional explanation, and the description provides none.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly identifies the tool as an email validator and enumerates specific checks: syntax, MX records, and disposable-domain detection. This is a clear function statement, though there are no sibling tools to differentiate from, so it stops 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.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives, what prerequisites exist, or what kind of input payload is expected. The 'at the edge' phrasing hints at a lightweight use case but does not provide actionable selection guidance.
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
run
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.
Keyless email checks: disposable, role, and free-provider detection, MX, and typo suggestions.
Verify email deliverability by SMTP. Catch-all/disposable/role detection. EU-hosted, GDPR-ready.
Verify emails and domains for routing, disposable providers, role accounts, and SMTP risk.
Related MCP Servers
- AlicenseNot gradedqualityBmaintenanceKeyless email validation: disposable/burner, role-account, and free-provider detection, MX checks, and typo suggestions. Tools: check_email, check_domain.MIT
- FlicenseNot gradedqualityCmaintenanceProvides email verification as a tool, performing syntax validation, domain verification, and disposable-domain risk detection.-
- FlicenseNot gradedqualityDmaintenanceComprehensive email validation MCP server that checks syntax, MX records, disposable domains, role-based accounts, SPF/DKIM, typo suggestions, and risk scoring.-
- FlicenseNot gradedqualityCmaintenanceProvides email verification as an MCP tool, checking format, disposable domains, and mail server availability with structured results.-
Glama MCP Gateway
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
TDQS
Only one tool exists, so there is zero ambiguity about which tool to use. The tool's description clearly states its purpose (email validation), leaving no room for confusion.
The tool name 'run' is a generic, vague verb that gives no indication of email validation. While consistency is trivially satisfied with a single tool, the name itself is uninformative and fails to follow a descriptive noun-verb pattern.
With only one tool, the server feels thin for a typical MCP surface, but it is focused on a single validation task. The scope is narrow enough that one tool might be acceptable, yet it borders on being too minimal for a comprehensive utility.
The single tool covers all standard email validation checks: syntax, MX records, and disposable-domain detection. This is a complete lifecycle for basic validation, though more advanced features (e.g., deliverability checks) could be a minor gap.