Skip to main content
Glama

Hermes Plant — Agent Commerce Assurance

by io.github.JesseGdotIO

EmailGuard — validate a whole contact list

emailguard_validate_batch
Idempotent

Validate up to 20 emails in one tool call — one deterministic verdict per record (validity, deliverability score, disposable/role/free classification, typo suggestion, canonical normalization). Pass your free apiKey (250 records/mo, no wallet — https://hermesplant.com/pricing) and each record serves from quota. Results preserve input order; the batch stops at the first 402 (quota exhausted) and marks the rest skipped so you can upgrade and resume.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
payerNoOptional wallet/account identifier; stored only as a hash
apiKeyNoFree-tier / plan API key (hp_free_… or a pass key). Forwarded as X-API-Key so paid tools serve from your monthly quota with NO x402 wallet. Get a free key (250 calls/mo) at https://hermesplant.com/pricing.
channelNoDiscovery channel or source tag
recordsYesContact records to validate — one storefront call per record (max 20 per tool call)
campaignNoCampaign tag for downstream telemetry
xPaymentNoRaw X-PAYMENT proof from an x402-compatible wallet/client
actorTypeNoCaller type for analytics: agent, human, synthetic, system, or unknown
syntheticNoMark this paid retry as an internal test/probe for analytics exclusion
paymentSignatureNox402 payment proof to forward as PAYMENT-SIGNATURE and X-PAYMENT on retry
paymentIdentifierNoOptional x402 payment identifier for idempotency/retry correlation

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
okYesTrue when the upstream storefront call returned a 2xx response
httpStatusYesUpstream HTTP status code
paymentRequiredNoTrue when the response is an x402 HTTP 402 payment challenge

TDQS

A4.5/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

The description adds substantial behavioral detail beyond the annotations: deterministic verdicts, preserving input order, stopping at the first 402 and marking the rest skipped, and quota per record. It also discloses auth needs (apiKey) and rate limits (250 records/mo). No contradictions with annotations; idempotentHint is supported by the deterministic verdict statement.

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 two sentences and front-loaded with the core purpose, then quota, then processing behavior. Every sentence adds critical information without fluff. It is concise yet highly informative for a tool with 10 parameters and an output schema.

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?

Given the tool's complexity, the rich input schema, and the presence of an output schema, the description covers essential context: purpose, batch limit, quota, authentication, deterministic behavior, and failure semantics. It does not need to explain return values due to the output schema, and nothing important appears missing for an agent to select and invoke this 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 baseline is 3. The description does not add significant parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema already provides; it repeats the quota/402 behavior but doesn't explain individual parameters further. It offers some business context about apiKey and records, but this is largely redundant with the schema descriptions.

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 states the tool's function: 'Validate up to 20 emails in one tool call' and enumerates the specific verdict components (validity, deliverability score, disposable/role/free classification, typo suggestion, canonical normalization). It also distinguishes itself from the sibling tool by emphasizing batch validation with a max of 20 email records.

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 establishes clear usage context: batch validation for up to 20 emails, with quota implications (free apiKey, 250 records/mo) and failure behavior (stops at first 402, marks rest skipped). However, it does not explicitly contrast with the single-email sibling 'emailguard_validate' or state when not to use this tool, so it falls short of a 5.

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

All Hermes Plant — Agent Commerce Assurance toolsInspect
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

A3.6/5.0
Disambiguation4/5

Most tools have clearly distinct purposes. Some overlap exists (e.g., dealanalyzer_analyze combines CashflowLens and WaterfallLens; action_safety_run includes DestructGuard evidence), but descriptions explicitly clarify scope so an agent can choose correctly.

Naming Consistency2/5

Naming patterns are mixed: some verbs precede nouns (get_product, purchase_with_x402), others follow nouns (bond_analyze, portfolioguard_score), and some are multi-word (action_safety_quick_gate). This inconsistency makes tool selection less predictable.

Tool Count3/5

At 25 tools, the server is at the heavy end and spans diverse subdomains (safety, payments, financial analytics, storefront). While each tool serves a purpose, the broad scope makes it feel overloaded for a single server.

Completeness3/5

Core assurance workflows (safety, payment, verification) are covered, but gaps exist: no refund/cancellation tools, no attestation lookup, and no way to retrieve 30-day action-safety status records. Financial analytics also have limited coverage (no equities).

Resources