P0: email check, uptime, web reader

by dev.workers.x402-bazaar-rank-worker.x402-bazaar-rank

Check email address

check_email_address

Read-onlyIdempotent

Use when you must check an email address before sending, signing up a user or adding a lead: syntax (IDN-aware), MX records with A/AAAA fallback, null MX, and disposable, role (info@, sales@). Returns the paid x402 request for your input (GET /v1/email/verify, $0.01 per call; schema linked). Call that URL with an x402 or MPP client to get the data. Bad input is refused before any charge. Checks one mailbox; for a list use check_email_batch. With an access key (Authorization: Bearer p0k_..., buy at https://x402-bazaar-rank.x402-bazaar-rank-worker.workers.dev/keys/buy?usd=5) the tool pays the call itself, returns the data and deducts the price. First call each day returns the data itself, free; later calls return the paid request.

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": "check_email_address"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`email`	Yes	email address to check, e.g. name@example.org

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedNov 7, 2026

TDQS

A4.2/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Goes well beyond the readOnly/idempotent/openWorld annotations by disclosing the pricing model ($0.01 per call), the x402/MPP payment flow, the free-first-call-per-day behavior, the bearer access-key upgrade path, and that invalid input is rejected before charging. Missing only secondary traits such as latency, whether the returned payment request expires, or result caching.

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

Conciseness3/5

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

The operational guidance is front-loaded, but the single paragraph is dense and crams endpoint, price, payment-client instructions, key purchase URL, and daily free-call rules into the same block. Every fact is useful, yet the payment mechanics could be structured more cleanly for a one-parameter tool.

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?

Since there is no output schema, the description carries the return-value burden and does explain the two possible returns (data directly, or a paid x402 request to replay). It defers the response schema to an external link, which is a minor completeness gap but appropriate for the tool's complexity.

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?

Only one parameter and the schema already documents it at 100% coverage (including maxLength and an example). The description adds no format or normalization guidance beyond the schema, so this sits at the baseline.

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?

States a specific verb (check) and resource (an email address) and enumerates what is verified: IDN-aware syntax, MX with A/AAAA fallback, null MX, and disposable/role detection. It also explicitly separates itself from the sibling: 'Checks one mailbox; for a list use check_email_batch.'

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

Usage Guidelines5/5

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

Gives concrete when-to-use triggers (before sending, signing up a user, adding a lead) and names the alternative for the multi-address case. The paid/free/access-key paths are spelled out as decision branches rather than left to inference.

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

All P0: email check, uptime, web reader 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?