Skip to main content
Glama

Email Validate

email_validate
Read-only

Validate an email address: RFC syntax, MX/A records via DNS-over-HTTPS, disposable and free-provider detection, role-account flag, deliverability score and verdict. Pay per call with USDC or USDT on Base via x402. 3 free calls per wallet.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
emailYesEmail address.
walletNoYour EVM wallet address (0x...). Unlocks the free tier (3 free calls per wallet).
api_keyNoOptional AMR enterprise API key.
check_mxNoResolve MX records (default true).
x_paymentNoOptional signed x402 payment payload (base64 JSON) for USDC/USDT on Base.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
emailYes
tokenNoToken actually used for payment (USDC, USDT or FREE).USDC
domainNo
has_mxNo
null_mxNo
routingYesHow the request was routed (provider, fallback, cache, latency).
verdictYes
cost_usdcYesPrice charged in stablecoin units (USDC/USDT 1:1); 0 on the free tier.
disposableYes
fetched_atNoUTC timestamp when the data was fetched.
local_partNo
mx_checkedYes
mx_recordsNo
role_accountYes
valid_syntaxYes
free_providerYes
domain_resolvesNo
freshness_secondsYesAge of the underlying data in seconds (0 = fetched live).
x_payment_responseNoBase64-encoded x402 settlement receipt (mirrors the X-PAYMENT-RESPONSE header). Only present when the call was paid with `x_payment`.
deliverability_scoreYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed1 schema field changed
    • changedOutput schema / (root)
      Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
      +  "description": "Response for ``POST /email-validate``.",
      +  "properties": {
      +    "cost_usdc": {
      +      "description": "Price charged in stablecoin units (USDC/USDT 1:1); 0 on the free tier.",
      +      "title": "Cost Usdc",
      +      "type": "number"
      +    },
      +    "deliverability_score": {
      +      "title": "Deliverability Score",
      +      "type": "integer"
      +    },
      +    "disposable": {
      +      "title": "Disposable",
      +      "type": "boolean"
      +    },
      +    "domain": {
      +      "anyOf": [
      +        {
      +          "type": "string"
      +        },
      +        {
      +          "type": "null"
      +        }
      +      ],
      +      "default": null,
      +      "title": "Domain"
      +    },
      +    "domain_resolves": {
      +      "anyOf": [
      +        {
      +          "type": "boolean"
      +        },
      +        {
      +          "type": "null"
      +        }
      +      ],
      +      "default": null,
      +      "title": "Domain Resolves"
      +    },
      +    "email": {
      +      "title": "Email",
      +      "type": "string"
      +    },
      +    "fetched_at": {
      +      "description": "UTC timestamp when the data was fetched.",
      +      "format": "date-time",
      +      "title": "Fetched At",
      +      "type": "string"
      +    },
      +    "free_provider": {
      +      "title": "Free Provider",
      +      "type": "boolean"
      +    },
      +    "freshness_seconds": {
      +      "description": "Age of the underlying data in seconds (0 = fetched live).",
      +      "title": "Freshness Seconds",
      +      "type": "integer"
      +    },
      +    "has_mx": {
      +      "anyOf": [
      +        {
      +          "type": "boolean"
      +        },
      +        {
      +          "type": "null"
      +        }
      +      ],
      +      "default": null,
      +      "title": "Has Mx"
      +    },
      +    "local_part": {
      +      "anyOf": [
      +        {
      +          "type": "string"
      +        },
      +        {
      +          "type": "null"
      +        }
      +      ],
      +      "default": null,
      +      "title": "Local Part"
      +    },
      +    "mx_checked": {
      +      "title": "Mx Checked",
      +      "type": "boolean"
      +    },
      +    "mx_records": {
      +      "items": {
      +        "additionalProperties": true,
      +        "type": "object"
      +      },
      +      "title": "Mx Records",
      +      "type": "array"
      +    },
      +    "null_mx": {
      +      "default": false,
      +      "title": "Null Mx",
      +      "type": "boolean"
      +    },
      +    "role_account": {
      +      "title": "Role Account",
      +      "type": "boolean"
      +    },
      +    "routing": {
      +      "description": "How the request was routed (provider, fallback, cache, latency).",
      +      "properties": {
      +        "cache_hit": {
      +          "default": false,
      +          "description": "True if the result was served from cache.",
      +          "title": "Cache Hit",
      +          "type": "boolean"
      +        },
      +        "fallback_used": {
      +          "default": false,
      +          "description": "True if the primary provider failed and a fallback served the result.",
      +          "title": "Fallback Used",
      +          "type": "boolean"
      +        },
      +        "latency_ms": {
      +          "default": 0,
      +          "description": "End-to-end routing latency in milliseconds.",
      +          "title": "Latency Ms",
      +          "type": "integer"
      +        },
      +        "provider": {
      +          "description": "Name of the upstream provider that served the result.",
      +          "title": "Provider",
      +          "type": "string"
      +        },
      +        "providers_tried": {
      +          "description": "Providers attempted, in order.",
      +          "items": {
      +            "type": "string"
      +          },
      +          "title": "Providers Tried",
      +          "type": "array"
      +        }
      +      },
      +      "required": [
      +        "provider"
      +      ],
      +      "title": "RoutingMeta",
      +      "type": "object"
      +    },
      +    "token": {
      +      "default": "USDC",
      +      "description": "Token actually used for payment (USDC, USDT or FREE).",
      +      "title": "Token",
      +      "type": "string"
      +    },
      +    "valid_syntax": {
      +      "title": "Valid Syntax",
      +      "type": "boolean"
      +    },
      +    "verdict": {
      +      "title": "Verdict",
      +      "type": "string"
      +    },
      +    "x_payment_response": {
      +      "description": "Base64-encoded x402 settlement receipt (mirrors the X-PAYMENT-RESPONSE header). Only present when the call was paid with `x_payment`.",
      +      "type": "string"
      +    }
      +  },
      +  "required": [
      +    "freshness_seconds",
      +    "cost_usdc",
      +    "routing",
      +    "email",
      +    "valid_syntax",
      +    "disposable",
      +    "free_provider",
      +    "role_account",
      +    "mx_checked",
      +    "deliverability_score",
      +    "verdict"
      +  ],
      +  "type": "object"
      +}
  2. Changed2 schema fields changed
    • addedInput schema / properties / check_mx / default
      Added value: +true
    • changedInput schema / properties / wallet / description
      Previous value: -"Your EVM wallet address (0x...). Unlocks the free tier (3 calls per wallet)."New value: +"Your EVM wallet address (0x...). Unlocks the free tier (3 free calls per wallet)."
  3. Added

TDQS

A4.2/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations (readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true) already establish safety and external data context. The description adds valuable behavioral details beyond annotations: it discloses the payment requirement (Pay per call with USDC/USDT on Base via x402), the free tier (3 free calls per wallet), and the technical mechanism (DNS-over-HTTPS). These are critical for correct usage. No contradictions with 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?

The description is a single, information-dense sentence that front-loads the core action and then lists specific checks and payment details. Every clause adds value; there is no filler or redundancy. Well-structured for quick parsing.

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?

Given the availability of an output schema and annotations, the description covers the essential aspects: what the tool does, the payment requirement, and the free tier. It does not mention error handling or failure outcomes for payment, but these are not strictly necessary given the output schema describes return values. The description is sufficiently complete for an agent to 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 description coverage is 100%, so parameters are well documented. The description adds overall context (e.g., deliverability score and verdict) but does not provide additional detail on individual parameters beyond what the schema already offers. It does not explain how parameters interact once the payment flow is triggered, but the schema descriptions are sufficient. Baseline of 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 clearly identifies the tool's purpose with a specific verb (Validate), a specific resource (email address), and enumerates concrete checks (RFC syntax, MX/A records, disposable detection, etc.). It clearly distinguishes from all sibling tools, none of which handle email validation. No ambiguity.

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 'Validate an email address' provides clear context for when to use the tool, but it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives. Given that no sibling tool overlaps with email validation, the context is sufficient for an agent to select it appropriately, though it lacks explicit exclusion guidance.

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.