Skip to main content
Glama

verify_email_code

Use this after create_invoice returns verification_required. Arguments: { challenge_id, code }. On success returns a verification_token. Retry create_invoice with the same arguments plus that verification_token passed in its verification_token field. The token is reusable for ~30 min, so thread the same one into every subsequent create_invoice for the same sender email until it expires. Only ever call this with a code the user gave you: attempts are capped, a handful of failures revokes the challenge and forces the user to request a new email, and a rate_limited error means stop and tell them to wait, not retry.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
codeYesThe 6-character code copied from the verification email body. Drawn from the confusable-free alphabet {2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9}. Check the user's paste against that alphabet before calling — a malformed code costs one of the few attempts the challenge allows.
challenge_idYesThe opaque challenge id surfaced by the previous `create_invoice` `verification_required` error.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed1 schema field changed
    • changedInput schema / properties / code / description
      Previous value: -"The 6-character code copied from the verification email body. Drawn from the confusable-free alphabet {2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9}."New value: +"The 6-character code copied from the verification email body. Drawn from the confusable-free alphabet {2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9}. Check the user's paste against that alphabet before calling — a malformed code costs one of the few attempts the challenge allows."
  2. First observed

TDQS

A4.6/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden of behavioral disclosure. It fully discloses attempt caps, revocation on repeated failures, rate_limited error semantics, token expiry (~30 min), and the constraint that only user-supplied codes should be used. This is exceptional transparency for a tool with no annotation support.

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?

The description is a single dense paragraph, but every sentence serves a purpose: it front-loads the trigger condition, explains the success flow, token reuse, and safety constraints. It is slightly long but well-structured and free of filler, earning a strong score.

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 there is no output schema, the description fully explains the return value (verification_token), the complete workflow with create_invoice, error handling, and usage constraints. Nothing essential is missing for an agent to call 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 both parameters (challenge_id and code) are already well-documented. The description adds some contextual value by explaining the origin of challenge_id and the purpose of code, but it does not introduce new semantics beyond what the schema already details. This meets the baseline for high schema coverage.

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 explicitly states when to use the tool ('Use this after create_invoice returns verification_required'), which clearly identifies it as the email-code verification step in the invoicing flow. It distinguishes itself from siblings like create_invoice, get_invoice, and list_supported_jurisdictions by naming its trigger condition and its role in the flow.

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

Usage Guidelines5/5

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

Provides explicit when-to-use guidance (after create_invoice returns verification_required), how to proceed on success (retry create_invoice with the verification_token), and when not to use (only with user-provided codes). It also gives error-handling instructions for rate_limited errors, making usage boundaries and alternatives clear.

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.