1Lookup

Verify email address

verify_email

Read-only

Verify an email address: checks that it exists and is deliverable, and flags disposable, role-based, and risky addresses. Spends 1 credit.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`email`	Yes	Email address to verify

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`request`	Yes	What was looked up, and when
`insights`	No	The detailed findings, grouped by theme
`metadata`	No	Call metadata, including credit cost
`classification`	No	Categorical verdicts, e.g. line type or deliverability status
`recommendations`	No	Suggested action, with a plain-language summary
`risk_assessment`	No	Fraud and risk scoring for this value

TDQS

A4.1/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already cover readOnly and destructive hints, so the description adds meaningful behavioral context: the verification performs existence/deliverability checks and categories like disposable/role-based/risky. The 'Spends 1 credit' note adds cost behavior not present in annotations.

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

Conciseness5/5

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

Two concise sentences with no fluff. Every sentence contributes: functional scope and cost. The information is front-loaded and easily scannable.

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 simple single-parameter tool with an output schema and annotations covering safety, the description sufficiently covers behavior and cost. It is complete enough for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly.

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% and the email parameter already has a clear description. The tool description reinforces the purpose of the parameter but does not add new format or constraints beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 uses a specific verb ('Verify') and resource ('email address') and further defines the action: checks existence, deliverability, and flags disposable, role-based, and risky addresses. This clearly differentiates it from sibling tools like validate_phone and bulk_verify.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

The description implies single-address verification and mentions 'Spends 1 credit,' hinting at a per-address cost versus bulk_verify, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over bulk_verify or other alternatives. No exclusions or alternative routing is given.

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

All 1Lookup tools Inspect

Try in Browser

RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

A4.3/5.0

Disambiguation5/5

Each tool targets a distinct resource or mode: single IP, phone, email, a batch operation, and account info. The bulk_verify tool is clearly differentiated from the single-item lookups by its batch scope.

Naming Consistency3/5

Most tools follow a verb_noun pattern like get_account, validate_phone, and verify_email, but ip_lookup reverses the order and bulk_verify uses a modifier before the verb. The mix of verify, validate, and lookup verbs is also slightly inconsistent.

Tool Count5/5

Five tools is a well-scoped set for a lookup/verification API: one account endpoint, three single-entity checks, and one bulk operation. Each tool has a clear purpose and none feel redundant.

Completeness5/5

The tool surface covers the core domain: phone, email, and IP verification are available both individually and via bulk_verify, and get_account supports operational planning around credits. No obvious dead ends or missing critical operations.

Resources

Need Help?