ai-agent-hub

Call email-validator (paid)

call_email_validator

Self-hosted, real implementation (replaces dead/broken Akash target) — a third-party service registered on this platform, paid via x402 (flat $0.10 per call, production networks). Call without paymentHeader first to receive the price + payment requirements; retry with paymentHeader set to a signed X-PAYMENT value to get the result.

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "call_email_validator"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`body`	No	For POST calls: JSON body to send
`method`	No	HTTP method this service expects — check its description or try GET first	GET
`queryParams`	No	For GET calls: query-string parameters as key/value pairs
`paymentHeader`	No	Signed x402 X-PAYMENT payload (base64). Omit on first call.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedOct 7, 2026

TDQS

A3.7/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations, the description bears the full burden and does much of it: it discloses the flat $0.10 per-call cost, production networks, the two-step unpaid-then-paid handshake, and that this replaces a dead target. It omits failure behavior, rate limits, and what the result payload looks like, so it is not complete.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness3/5

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

Two sentences, and the actionable payment flow is front-loaded. However, the leading clause about being a self-hosted real implementation that replaces a 'dead/broken Akash target' is platform-internal noise that does not help an agent decide or invoke, diluting an otherwise efficient description.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness3/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

There is no output schema and no annotations, so the description must carry the return-value burden, and it only says 'get the result' without describing what an email-validation response contains. The payment/auth mechanics are covered well, but the missing result semantics and error behavior leave it only minimally adequate.

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 the schema already documents all four parameters, including the `paymentHeader` omission rule and the `method` hint. The description only reinforces the paymentHeader flow at a procedural level and adds nothing about `body` or `queryParams`, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description states a clear action and resource: calling a self-hosted email-validator service, third-party, paid via x402. It distinguishes the tool by naming its service and payment model, though it never says what the validation actually inspects (syntax, deliverability, MX) and does not differentiate it from the other `call_*` siblings beyond the name.

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?

It gives explicit procedural guidance: call without paymentHeader first to obtain price and payment requirements, then retry with a signed X-PAYMENT value. That is strong when-to-use guidance for this tool's two-phase flow, but it offers no guidance on when to prefer this tool over the sibling `call_*` services.

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

All ai-agent-hub 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?