mailverdict
Server Details
Keyless email checks: disposable, role, and free-provider detection, MX, and typo suggestions.
- Status
- Healthy
- Last Tested
- Transport
- Streamable HTTP
- URL
Glama MCP Gateway
Connect through Glama MCP Gateway for full control over tool access and complete visibility into every call.
Full call logging
Every tool call is logged with complete inputs and outputs, so you can debug issues and audit what your agents are doing.
Tool access control
Enable or disable individual tools per connector, so you decide what your agents can and cannot do.
Managed credentials
Glama handles OAuth flows, token storage, and automatic rotation, so credentials never expire on your clients.
Usage analytics
See which tools your agents call, how often, and when, so you can understand usage patterns and catch anomalies.
Tool Definition Quality
Average 3.8/5 across 2 of 2 tools scored.
The two tools are clearly related but distinct: check_domain focuses on domain-level checks, while check_email adds email-specific signals like syntax and role account. There is some overlap in domain checking, but the descriptions differentiate their purposes well.
Both tools follow the same verb_noun pattern (check_domain, check_email), making it predictable and easy to navigate.
Two tools are appropriate for a focused email verification server. Each tool serves a clear and distinct purpose without being too few or too many.
The tools cover the essential checks for domains and emails. A minor gap might be the absence of a dedicated MX check tool, but the existing tools already incorporate MX records, so it's mostly complete.
Available Tools
2 toolscheck_domainAInspect
Check a domain: disposable/burner list membership, free-provider status, typo suggestion, MX records.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| mx | No | Look up MX records (default true). | |
| domain | Yes | The domain to check. |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It lists what the tool checks but does not disclose whether it is read-only, authentication requirements, rate limits, or error behavior. For a tool with no annotations, this is insufficient.
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?
Single sentence, 13 words, front-loaded with the verb 'Check', listing key functionalities without waste. Excellent conciseness.
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?
Given no output schema and no annotations, the description covers purpose and key features but lacks details on return format, error states, and when not to use. Adequate but with clear gaps.
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 coverage is 100% with both parameters well described. The description adds value by explaining the overall checks performed (disposable, free, typo, MX), which are not detailed in parameter descriptions, thus compensating effectively.
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?
Description clearly states the tool checks a domain for disposable/burner list membership, free-provider status, typo suggestion, and MX records, distinguishing it from the sibling tool check_email which checks an email address.
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?
Context implies usage for domain validation and reputation checks, but no explicit when-not or alternative guidance is provided. Sibling tool check_email is named but not differentiated in usage.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
check_emailAInspect
Check an email address: syntax, disposable/burner domain, role account, free provider, typo suggestion, MX records. Returns result (deliverable|undeliverable|risky|unknown), reason, score 0-100, and per-signal booleans.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| mx | No | Look up MX records (default true). | |
| Yes | The email address to check. |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations exist, so the description must fully disclose behavior. It covers what signals are checked and return format but omits side effects, rate limits, authorization needs, or error handling. Basic transparency but not thorough.
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?
Description is a single sentence that efficiently lists capabilities and return fields. It is front-loaded with the action 'Check an email address.' However, the list format is somewhat run-on, though still concise.
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?
Given no output schema, the description adequately explains the return structure (result, reason, score, booleans). It covers the tool's core purpose but lacks details on edge cases, error scenarios, or state changes, which is acceptable for a read-like tool with no annotations.
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 coverage is 100%, so both parameters are documented. Description adds minimal context: mx parameter is restated as controlling MX lookup, email is the address to check. Baseline score of 3 is correct as no significant extra meaning is added.
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?
Description clearly states the tool checks an email address for syntax, disposable domains, role accounts, free providers, typo suggestions, and MX records. It lists return fields (result, reason, score, per-signal booleans), distinguishing it from sibling tool check_domain.
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?
Description implies use for email verification but lacks explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. No comparison to sibling check_domain is provided, leaving the agent to infer context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Claim this connector by publishing a /.well-known/glama.json file on your server's domain with the following structure:
{
"$schema": "https://glama.ai/mcp/schemas/connector.json",
"maintainers": [{ "email": "your-email@example.com" }]
}The email address must match the email associated with your Glama account. Once published, Glama will automatically detect and verify the file within a few minutes.
Control your server's listing on Glama, including description and metadata
Access analytics and receive server usage reports
Get monitoring and health status updates for your server
Feature your server to boost visibility and reach more users
For users:
Full audit trail – every tool call is logged with inputs and outputs for compliance and debugging
Granular tool control – enable or disable individual tools per connector to limit what your AI agents can do
Centralized credential management – store and rotate API keys and OAuth tokens in one place
Change alerts – get notified when a connector changes its schema, adds or removes tools, or updates tool definitions, so nothing breaks silently
For server owners:
Proven adoption – public usage metrics on your listing show real-world traction and build trust with prospective users
Tool-level analytics – see which tools are being used most, helping you prioritize development and documentation
Direct user feedback – users can report issues and suggest improvements through the listing, giving you a channel you would not have otherwise
The connector status is unhealthy when Glama is unable to successfully connect to the server. This can happen for several reasons:
The server is experiencing an outage
The URL of the server is wrong
Credentials required to access the server are missing or invalid
If you are the owner of this MCP connector and would like to make modifications to the listing, including providing test credentials for accessing the server, please contact support@glama.ai.
Discussions
No comments yet. Be the first to start the discussion!