P0: email check, uptime, web reader

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

Check email batch

check_email_batch

Read-onlyIdempotent

Use when you must check a list of email addresses before a mailing or import: up to 25 addresses in one POST, each checked exactly like /v1/email/verify. Returns the paid x402 request for your input (POST /v1/email/verify/batch, $0.25 per call; schema linked). POST that JSON body to the URL with an x402 or MPP client to get the data. Bad input is refused before any charge. For one address use check_email_address. 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.

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": {
      "emails": "<emails>"
    },
    "name": "check_email_batch"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`emails`	Yes	1 to 25 email addresses to check; duplicates are removed

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedNov 7, 2026

TDQS

A4.6/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Goes well past the readOnly/idempotent annotations by disclosing the non-obvious contract: the tool returns a paid x402 request payload rather than data, the caller must POST it to a specific URL, pricing is $0.25 per call, and bad input is refused before any charge. It also explains the access-key mode that pays and returns data directly — critical behavior an agent cannot get from the annotations.

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?

Front-loads the use case and the sibling alternative before the payment mechanics, which is the right ordering. It is dense but each clause carries operational weight; the inline key-purchase URL and 'schema linked' phrasing are the only slightly noisy parts.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness5/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a tool whose real complexity is the payment handshake rather than the payload, the description covers everything needed to call it correctly: input bounds, the returned-request workflow, cost, failure behavior, and the authenticated shortcut. No output schema exists, and the description compensates by explaining what comes back in each mode.

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?

Schema coverage is 100%, so the single 'emails' parameter is already fully documented including the 1-25 bounds and dedupe behavior. The description restates the 25-item limit rather than adding syntax or format meaning, so it sits at the high-coverage 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?

Names a specific verb and resource ('check a list of email addresses'), states the batch scope ('up to 25 addresses in one POST'), and explicitly contrasts with the sibling check_email_address for single lookups. An agent can route between the two without opening either schema.

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 a concrete triggering condition ('before a mailing or import') and names the alternative and the condition that selects it ('For one address use check_email_address'). Nothing about when-to-use is 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?