Email Verification MCP
Server Details
Verify emails — deliverability, disposable/role/free detection, MX validity, domain age.
- 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 4.3/5 across 5 of 5 tools scored. Lowest: 3/5.
Each tool targets a distinct function: batch verification, single verification, brief summary, full daily brief, and blockchain mint info. No overlap in purpose.
Names are snake_case and descriptive, but mix verb_noun (verify_email, batch_verify) with noun_noun (brief_summary, daily_brief, mint_info). Mostly consistent with a minor deviation.
5 tools cover the email verification domain well, with additional brief and mint info tools. Well-scoped, not too few or too many.
Covers single and batch email verification, daily briefs summarizing activity, and blockchain attestation info. No obvious gaps for the server's stated purpose.
Available Tools
5 toolsbatch_verifyAInspect
Verify an array of email addresses in one call — the volume play for list hygiene and bulk lead enrichment. Returns a per-email result array (same signals as verify_email) plus a deliverable/disposable summary. Up to 100 emails per call; domain-level facts are cached and deduped, so repeat domains are cheap.
PAID: $0.003 USDC per email, minimum $0.05, after the daily free allowance. On a 402, pay the returned Solana memo and re-call with the SAME args plus payment_tx=. An Authorization: Bearer fnet_ key bypasses payment.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| emails | Yes | list of email addresses (max 100; deduped). | |
| agent_id | No | stable id for your agent (scopes the free-tier counter). | |
| payment_tx | No | Solana tx signature, when re-calling after a 402. |
Output Schema
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
No output parameters | ||
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Discloses return format (per-email results plus summary), caching/deduping behavior, payment model (cost, minimum fee, 402 handling with Solana memo and payment_tx parameter), and auth bypass option. Full transparency despite missing annotations.
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?
Two concise paragraphs: first covers core functionality and caching, second covers payment model. Every sentence adds value, front-loaded with primary purpose.
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?
Complete for a verification tool with output schema and sibling context. Payment logic, constraints, and caching are fully explained. No gaps for agent invocation.
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?
Adds context beyond schema: 'max 100; deduped' for emails, 'scopes the free-tier counter' for agent_id, and explains payment_tx use for post-402 recall. Schema had 100% coverage but description enriches understanding.
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?
Clearly states 'Verify an array of email addresses in one call' with specific verb and resource. Distinguishes from sibling 'verify_email' by emphasizing bulk operation and use cases like list hygiene and lead enrichment.
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?
Explicitly positions as 'volume play' for bulk vs single verification, and notes up to 100 emails per call. Lacks explicit 'when not to use', but sibling differentiation is clear.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
brief_summaryAInspect
Get the top 5 signals from today's brief as structured JSON — a cheap sample of the full daily_brief. Returns the day's highest-priority items (no prose) so an agent can decide whether to buy the full brief.
PAID: $0.50 USDC (vs the full daily_brief price). Defaults to today (UTC). On a 402, pay the returned Solana memo and re-call with the SAME args plus payment_tx=. An Authorization: Bearer fnet_ key bypasses payment.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| date | No | brief date YYYY-MM-DD (default today, UTC). | |
| agent_id | No | stable id for your agent (scopes the free-tier counter). | |
| payment_tx | No | Solana tx signature, when re-calling after a 402. |
Output Schema
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
No output parameters | ||
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description fully discloses payment requirement, default date behavior, error handling (402), and auth key bypass, all beyond what the schema covers.
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?
The description is five sentences, front-loaded with purpose and usage, and every sentence adds necessary information without redundancy.
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 the presence of an output schema (not shown), the description covers all relevant aspects: purpose, usage, payment, auth, and defaults, making it complete for a paid tool.
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% and descriptions are identical to those in the schema, so the description adds no new context beyond what the schema already provides for each parameter.
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?
The description clearly states the tool returns the top 5 signals from today's brief as structured JSON, and distinguishes itself from the sibling daily_brief by being a cheap sample.
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?
Explicitly explains when to use (to decide on buying full brief) and how to handle payment errors (402 retry flow) and authorization bypass.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
daily_briefAInspect
Get the curated daily email-verification brief — the day's verification activity in one package: volume, deliverability mix, disposable-domain hit rate, and the most-queried + most-flagged domains. Each brief carries a MINT provenance attestation so a buyer can verify it was produced by this server, unaltered.
PAID: $5 USDC per brief. Defaults to today (UTC); a brief expires at the next midnight UTC. On a 402, pay the returned Solana memo and re-call with the SAME args plus payment_tx=. An fnet_ Bearer key bypasses payment.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| date | No | brief date YYYY-MM-DD (default today, UTC). | |
| agent_id | No | stable id for your agent (scopes the free-tier counter). | |
| payment_tx | No | Solana tx signature, when re-calling after a 402. | |
| stripe_token | No | Stripe Checkout Session id (cs_…), when re-calling after paying the Stripe payment link (alternative to x402). Can also be supplied via the X-Stripe-Token header. |
Output Schema
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
No output parameters | ||
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool is paid, has a 402 payment flow, carries a MINT provenance attestation, and expires daily. However, it does not mention rate limits, idempotency, or what happens with invalid parameters beyond the 402 case.
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?
The description is two paragraphs, the first immediately explains what the tool does and its output, the second handles payment and auth. Every sentence adds critical information, and there is no redundancy or fluff. It uses bold for key terms like 'PAID', enhancing readability.
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 the existence of an output schema (not shown), the description does not need to detail return values. It covers the brief's contents, payment mechanics, expiration, and authentication bypass. Minor gaps: it doesn't specify behavior for future dates or if the optional agent_id affects cost, but overall it is sufficiently complete for an agent to correctly invoke the tool.
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?
The schema has 100% coverage, but the description adds significant value: it explains that 'date' defaults to today and that a brief expires at midnight UTC, that 'payment_tx' is for re-call after a 402 response, and that 'stripe_token' is an alternative payment method. It also notes that 'agent_id' scopes a free-tier counter, though inferred from the schema.
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?
The description clearly states 'Get the curated daily email-verification brief' and enumerates its contents (volume, deliverability mix, disposable-domain hit rate, most-queried/flagged domains). This distinguishes it from siblings like verify_email (single verification) and batch_verify (bulk verification) without needing explicit exclusion statements.
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?
The description specifies that the tool is paid ($5 USDC), defaults to today UTC, expires at midnight UTC, and details the 402 payment flow with re-call instructions. It also mentions an alternative authentication (fnet_ Bearer key). While it does not explicitly state when not to use it, the sibling context implies usage for a daily summary rather than individual verification.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
mint_infoBInspect
FoundryNet Data Network + MINT Protocol details (FREE). How to attest your agent's email/contact verification on-chain for verifiable proof of work, and the sibling data servers available across the network.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No parameters | |||
Output Schema
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
No output parameters | ||
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so description must disclose behavior. It implies the tool returns information (details, how-to), but does not explicitly state it is read-only, has no side effects, or requires no authentication. The description is incomplete for behavioral clarity.
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?
The description is a single sentence that conveys multiple aspects. While not overly long, it could be broken into clearer statements. However, it is efficient and front-loaded with key terms like 'FREE' and 'details'.
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 the tool's simplicity (no parameters, output schema present), the description covers its purpose and mentions key topics (network, protocol, attestation). It does not explain return values, but that is covered by the output schema. Overall, sufficient context.
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?
With zero parameters and 100% schema coverage, the description adds context about the tool's content (details, attestation guide, sibling servers). This adds meaning beyond the empty schema, earning a high score.
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?
The description mentions FoundryNet Data Network and MINT Protocol details, and how to attest email/contact verification. However, it mixes multiple purposes (network details, attestation instructions, sibling servers) without a clear single verb+resource. It is not a tautology but lacks focus.
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?
No explicit guidance on when to use this tool over siblings like batch_verify or verify_email. The description says 'FREE' and mentions sibling data servers, but does not clarify specific use cases or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
verify_emailAInspect
Verify a single email address — deliverability and quality signals for lead enrichment, signup gating, and list hygiene. Returns deliverable (true/false/unknown), mx_valid, disposable (throwaway/temp-mail), role_account (info@, support@, …), free_provider (gmail, yahoo, …), domain_age_days, and a best-effort smtp_check. Domain-level facts are cached 7 days.
PAID: $0.005 USDC per query after a daily free allowance (25/day). On a 402, pay the returned Solana memo and re-call with the SAME args plus payment_tx=. An Authorization: Bearer fnet_ key bypasses payment.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| Yes | the email address to verify. | ||
| agent_id | No | stable id for your agent (scopes the free-tier counter). | |
| payment_tx | No | Solana tx signature, when re-calling after a 402. |
Output Schema
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
No output parameters | ||
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, but description fully discloses behavior: return fields, caching (7 days), pricing ($0.005 per query with daily free allowance), and error handling (402 requiring payment memo). This is comprehensive for a single-email tool.
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?
Well-structured: starts with purpose, lists outputs, then caching, then pricing/error handling. Each sentence adds value. Slightly long but efficient for the information density.
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 an output schema exists (context signal), the description covers return values, use cases, caching, pricing, and error recovery. Nothing essential is missing for an agent to use this tool correctly.
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%, baseline 3. Description adds value by explaining that agent_id scopes free-tier counter and payment_tx is used after a 402. This extra context improves understanding of parameter usage beyond schema descriptions.
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?
Clearly states the tool verifies a single email address and lists specific deliverability/quality signals. Distinguishes from sibling tool 'batch_verify' by focusing on single email. The verb 'verify' and resource 'email address' are specific.
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?
Mentions use cases (lead enrichment, signup gating, list hygiene) and implies when to use vs batch_verify. Provides payment instructions for paid queries. Could be more explicit about when not to use, but is sufficient.
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!