Versium REACH

Email Validation Mcp Tool

email_validation

Read-onlyIdempotent

Validate email addresses and optionally get alternate valid emails using Versium's Email Validation API. Returns validation status, sub-status, and whether the email is valid for mailing.

**Tips for Best Results:**
- Provide a valid email address or MD5/SHA256 hashed email (HEM)
- Use `include_alternate` to get an alternate valid email if the input is invalid
- Provide additional contact info (name, address) to improve alternate email matching
- Use `rcfg_exclude_domains` to filter out unwanted email domains from alternates

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`zip`	No	5 digit US ZIP code
`city`	No	City name
`last`	No	Person's last name (helps find alternate email)
`email`	Yes	Email address to validate. Can also be an MD5 or SHA256 hashed email (HEM).
`first`	No	Person's first name (helps find alternate email)
`phone`	No	10 digit phone number
`state`	No	US state two-letter abbreviation
`address`	No	Street address (helps find alternate email)
`address_2`	No	Apartment or unit number
`rcfg_snake_case`	No	Return response field names in snake_case instead of "Title Case With Spaces".
`include_alternate`	No	Whether to include an alternate valid email in the response if the input email is invalid.
`rcfg_exclude_domains`	No	Domains to exclude from alternate email results (e.g., aol.com, yahoo.com). Only applies when include_alternate is true.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`results`	No	Records returned by the Operations API. Record fields pass through unchanged.
`query_id`	No
`warnings`	No
`input_query`	No
`num_matches`	No	Number of matching queries.
`num_results`	No	Number of records returned.
`match_counts`	No	Sparse match counts. An absent key means zero.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed1 schema field changedAug 20, 2026

changedOutput schema / (root)

Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+  "properties": {
+    "input_query": {
+      "type": [
+        "object",
+        "null"
+      ]
+    },
+    "match_counts": {
+      "description": "Sparse match counts. An absent key means zero.",
+      "type": [
+        "object",
+        "null"
+      ]
+    },
+    "num_matches": {
+      "description": "Number of matching queries.",
+      "type": [
+        "integer",
+        "null"
+      ]
+    },
+    "num_results": {
+      "description": "Number of records returned.",
+      "type": [
+        "integer",
+        "null"
+      ]
+    },
+    "query_id": {
+      "type": [
+        "string",
+        "null"
+      ]
+    },
+    "results": {
+      "description": "Records returned by the Operations API. Record fields pass through unchanged.",
+      "items": {
+        "type": "object"
+      },
+      "type": [
+        "array",
+        "null"
+      ]
+    },
+    "warnings": {
+      "items": {
+        "type": [
+          "string",
+          "integer",
+          "number",
+          "boolean",
+          "object",
+          "array",
+          "null"
+        ]
+      },
+      "type": [
+        "array",
+        "null"
+      ]
+    }
+  },
+  "type": "object"
+}

First observedAug 19, 2026

TDQS

A4.1/5.0

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 reveals that the tool returns validation status and whether the email is valid for mailing, and explains the optional alternate-email behavior. However, it doesn't disclose error handling, rate limits, or any side effects, but for a read-only validation tool this is acceptable. It adds moderate value beyond the schema.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is concise with a clear main line and a bulleted list of tips. It is front-loaded with the primary purpose guide. Each tip is relevant and adds value. Slightly long but well-structured.

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?

With 12 parameters and an output schema, the description covers enough context: it explains the core behavior, optional alternate email feature, and tips for better results. It doesn't delve into output format, but the output schema likely covers that. For a tool with this complexity, the description is adequate and complete.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The schema covers the parameters well (100% have descriptions), so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by clarifying the purpose of additional contact info ('improve alternate email matching') and explains how rcfg_exclude_domains works. This goes beyond schema descriptions, justifying a slightly higher score.

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 tool's purpose: 'Validate email addresses and optionally get alternate valid emails using Versium's Email Validation API.' It specifies the verb (validate), the resource (email addresses), and the API used aids in distinguishing it from sibling tools like data append tools.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description includes 'Tips for Best Results' which provides practical usage guidance, such as using hashed emails, including additional contact info for better alternates, and filtering domains. While it doesn't explicitly state when not to use the tool or compare to alternatives, the context is clear enough for tool selection among the sibling tools.

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

All Versium REACH tools Inspect

Try in Browser

One endpoint for every MCP toolRayrun runs every MCP server behind one URL and holds the credentials. Each call is decided per client, tool, and argument, then recorded.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources

Need Help?