Verify an email address via Loqate. Returns confidence, risk level, and accept/review/reject recommendation. Requires a Loqate API key — pass it via the 'key' field.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| key | No | Loqate API key — required unless the server has one configured or the request carries an Authorization: Bearer header | |
| Yes | Email address to verify | ||
| policy | No | Policy name: strict shipping standard (default) or permissive |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, but the description adds valuable context: it returns specific data (confidence, risk, recommendation) and requires a Loqate API key passed via the 'key' field. This goes beyond the structured annotations without contradicting them.
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 sentences, front-loaded with the primary action and return values, and contains no wasted words. Every element earns its place.
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?
The tool has no output schema, but the description clearly lists the return categories (confidence, risk, recommendation). The key requirement and external service are noted. It does not explain the 'policy' parameter but the schema covers it. Overall, it is adequately complete for a simple verification 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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all three parameters. The description's mention of the 'key' field merely repeats the schema; it adds no additional semantic value beyond what is already provided.
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 uses a specific verb ('Verify') with a clear resource ('email address via Loqate') and explicitly states the output (confidence, risk level, accept/review/reject recommendation). This distinguishes it from sibling verification tools targeting other resource types.
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 implies usage for email verification but provides no explicit guidance on when to choose this over sibling tools like verify_contact or verify_phone. It mentions the API key requirement but not exclusions or alternative scenarios.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Tools are largely distinct with clear purposes. Overlap exists between verify_address and verify_contact (which can verify address alone), but the descriptions explicitly clarify when to use each. list_policies and show_policy are clearly separate (list vs detail), and retrieve_address is distinct as a reference data lookup. No tools are truly ambiguous.
All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern in snake_case (list_policies, show_policy, retrieve_address, verify_address, etc.). The verbs are clear and uniformly styled, with no mixed conventions or vague names.
Seven tools is well-scoped for a verification server. Each tool serves a distinct purpose—policy management, address resolution, and verification for address/email/phone/contact—without unnecessary redundancy or excessive count.
The toolset covers the core lifecycle of verification: policy exploration (list/show), address resolution from suggestions, and verification across all contact channels, including combined contact verification. The ability to request suggestions during verification and then resolve them to full addresses ensures a complete workflow with no dead ends.
