Skip to main content
Glama

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
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
zipNo5 digit US ZIP code
cityNoCity name
lastNoPerson's last name (helps find alternate email)
emailYesEmail address to validate. Can also be an MD5 or SHA256 hashed email (HEM).
firstNoPerson's first name (helps find alternate email)
phoneNo10 digit phone number
stateNoUS state two-letter abbreviation
addressNoStreet address (helps find alternate email)
address_2NoApartment or unit number
rcfg_snake_caseNoReturn response field names in snake_case instead of "Title Case With Spaces".
include_alternateNoWhether to include an alternate valid email in the response if the input email is invalid.
rcfg_exclude_domainsNoDomains to exclude from alternate email results (e.g., aol.com, yahoo.com). Only applies when include_alternate is true.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
resultsNoRecords returned by the Operations API. Record fields pass through unchanged.
query_idNo
warningsNo
input_queryNo
num_matchesNoNumber of matching queries.
num_resultsNoNumber of records returned.
match_countsNoSparse match counts. An absent key means zero.

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.

Try in Browser

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

A4.1/5.0
Disambiguation5/5

Each tool targets a distinct resource and action: list generation (B2B vs B2C), enrichment (contact, demographic, firmographic, C2B, IP-to-domain), project/list management, job lifecycle, and validation. No two tools appear to do the same thing, so an agent can reliably select the correct one.

Naming Consistency5/5

All tool names follow the verb_noun pattern consistently, using verbs like list, show, create, preview, search, validate, append, and estimate. Even the segmented append tools (c2b_append, contact_append, demographic_append, firmographic_append, ip_to_domain_append) follow the same pattern with clear noun modifiers. No mixed conventions or vague verbs.

Tool Count4/5

With 19 tools, this is on the higher side but still well-scoped for a data enrichment and list-building platform. The count covers distinct functional areas (audience estimation, enrichment, job/project management, list inspection, documentation) without unnecessary bloat. It feels slightly heavy but each tool earns its place.

Completeness4/5

The tool surface covers the core workflows: estimating audiences, creating and monitoring jobs, managing projects and lists, and enriching records with various data types. Minor gaps exist, such as no explicit delete/update operations for projects or lists, and no direct file download for list contents (though preview_list and show_list provide partial coverage). These are non-blocking gaps that agents can work around.

Resources