Skip to main content
Glama

Verify an email address

verify_email
Destructive

Verify a single email address in real time (GET /v1/verify). SPENDS 1 CREDIT per call, including repeats of the same address. Returns status (passed | undeliverable | risky | unknown), reason and passed.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "email": "<email>"
    },
    "name": "verify_email"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
emailYesThe email address to verify.
timeoutNoMilliseconds to wait for a verdict before answering `unknown` (1000–60000; default 30000).

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observed

TDQS

A4/5.0
Behavior4/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already disclose non-read-only, non-idempotent, destructive, and open-world behavior. The description adds materially useful context: it costs 1 credit per call even for repeated addresses, runs in real time, and returns specific verdict fields with possible status values.

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 front-loaded, compact, and every sentence adds useful information: endpoint, cost behavior, and return shape. There is no redundant or filler text.

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?

For a two-parameter verification tool with no output schema, the description provides the essential return fields and status values plus the critical credit cost. It would be stronger with explicit sibling routing, but it is complete enough for correct invocation.

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 description coverage is 100%, so both the email and timeout parameters are already well documented. The description does not add syntax, constraints, or semantics beyond what the schema provides; baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 uses a specific verb and resource ('Verify a single email address') and scopes it to one address in real time, distinguishing it from batch-oriented siblings such as start_batch_verification.

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 word 'single' implies this is for one address rather than a batch, and the credit warning gives important usage context. However, it does not explicitly name batch verification as the alternative or state when not to use this tool.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Try in Browser

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources