SiteCheck Web Intel

Checks whether an email address's domain is

security_email_disposable

Read-only

Checks whether an email address's domain (or a domain you give) is on the community disposable and temporary email blocklist (about 9,900 domains). Only the domain is checked, never the mailbox, and a domain missing from the list is not proven to be permanent. Price: $0.002 in USDC per successful call, paid with x402 (Base, Solana or Arc); failed calls are not charged.

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": {
      "email": "<email>"
    },
    "name": "security_email_disposable"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`email`	Yes	Email address or domain, e.g. user@mailinator.com or mailinator.com (required)

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`domain`	No
`source`	No
`listSize`	No
`checkedAt`	No
`disposable`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedOct 23, 2026

TDQS

A4/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations only declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint; the description adds substantive behavior beyond that: it is a remote community list of roughly 9,900 domains, only the domain is ever checked, absence from the list is not proof of permanence, and each successful call costs $0.002 in USDC via x402 (Base, Solana or Arc) with failed calls uncharged. Cost and payment rail disclosure is exactly the extra context an agent needs; the only gap is what the response looks like, which the output 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.

Conciseness4/5

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

Front-loaded with purpose, then scope limits, then cost; there is no filler. The single long compound sentence is slightly dense and could be split, but every clause (domain-only scope, list size, false-negative caveat, pricing) earns its place.

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 one-parameter lookup with an output schema, the description supplies everything the agent needs: what is checked, what is not, how to read a negative result, and the payment model including that failures are free. Nothing material is left to inference.

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%, and the parameter description already says it accepts an email address or a bare domain. The description adds the meaningful semantic that only the domain portion is evaluated, never the mailbox, which changes how an agent should interpret input and results, but offers no format or error-handling detail beyond the schema.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Checks whether an email address's domain ... is on the community disposable and temporary email blocklist') plus the list size (~9,900 domains). This clearly separates it from sibling reputation/blocklist tools such as security_spameatingmonkey or security_blocklist_de, so an agent can select it without opening the schema.

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 the use case (validating an email/domain against a disposable-email list) and gives a valuable interpretation caveat that a non-listed domain is not proven permanent. However, it names no alternatives and gives no explicit when-to-use/when-not or routing guidance against the many other security_* reputation tools.

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

All SiteCheck Web Intel 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?