lookup_emailValidate an email address (syntax, MX record, disposable check). Use when you need to verify if an email address is real and deliverable.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| Yes | Email address to validate |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true, so the read-only nature is known. The description adds the specific validation methods (syntax, MX, disposable), which is useful. However, it does not describe the return value format or edge cases (e.g., missing MX), and openWorldHint is not explained, leaving some behavioral ambiguity.
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?
The description is two sentences with no fluff. The purpose and usage are front-loaded, making it easy to scan and understand.
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?
For a single-parameter read-only lookup tool with annotations, the description covers purpose, usage, and validation components. It lacks return value details, but the tool is simple enough that this is not a critical gap.
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?
The schema covers the single parameter 'email' with a description, and the tool description also references email addresses. No additional parameter semantics are provided beyond the schema, meeting the baseline for 100% coverage.
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 validating an email address with specific checks (syntax, MX record, disposable check). It distinguishes from sibling tools like lookup_address_validate and lookup_whois by explicitly focusing on email deliverability.
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?
The description gives a clear usage context: 'Use when you need to verify if an email address is real and deliverable.' It does not mention alternatives or exclusions, but the context is sufficiently specific for this simple tool.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
The tools are grouped into clear categories (dev, lookup, security, text, transform), which helps with disambiguation, but within categories there is some overlap. For example, lookup_ssl and lookup_ssl_cert_expiry both handle SSL certificates, and dev_url_encode/dev_url_decode are closely related but distinct. Most tools have unique purposes, but a few could be confused without careful reading of descriptions.
The naming follows a consistent snake_case pattern with a clear prefix structure (dev_, lookup_, security_, text_, transform_), which aids in organization. However, there are minor deviations like dev_cron_describe using 'describe' while others use verbs like 'generate' or 'convert', and some tools have longer names that break the verb_noun pattern slightly. Overall, the naming is predictable and readable.
With 49 tools, the count is excessive for a utility server, making it overwhelming and likely to cause confusion or inefficiency. While the tools cover many use cases, a more focused set of 15-25 tools would be more manageable and better scoped. The high number suggests feature bloat rather than a coherent, minimal surface.
The tool set is highly complete for its utility and development support domain, covering a wide range of operations from data transformation and security to lookups and text processing. There are no obvious gaps; each category provides comprehensive coverage, such as full text encoding/decoding, security functions, and various lookup capabilities, ensuring agents can handle diverse tasks without dead ends.