validate_emailsValidate up to 100 email addresses at once.
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": {
"emails": "<emails>"
},
"name": "validate_emails"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| emails | Yes | ||
| checkMx | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true), so the bar is lower, but the description adds nothing beyond a limit already encoded in the schema (maxItems: 100). It never says what 'validate' means (syntax only, domain, MX/deliverability) or whether the open-world hint implies network lookups and added latency.
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 front-loaded sentence with zero filler, and the batch limit leads. It is efficient, though its brevity edges into under-specification rather than genuine tightness.
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?
No output schema exists, so the description should say what a validation result looks like (per-address valid/invalid flags, error reasons), and it says nothing. Combined with the unexplained checkMx parameter, an agent cannot predict the response shape or the cost of the call.
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%, so the description must compensate and does not. The more consequential parameter, checkMx (default true), is never explained - an agent cannot tell it triggers an MX/DNS lookup with cost or failure modes versus pure syntax checking.
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?
States a specific verb and resource ('Validate ... email addresses') plus batch scope ('up to 100 ... at once'), which implicitly separates it from the singular validate_email sibling. It stops short of naming that sibling explicitly, so no explicit differentiation.
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 phrase 'at once' hints at the batch use case but there is no explicit when-to-use rule, no mention of when to use the singular validate_email instead, and no prerequisites or exclusions. The agent must infer routing from the sibling names alone.
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.