Disify

Check Domain

check_domain

Read-onlyIdempotent

Check if a domain is associated with disposable or temporary email services. Returns risk assessment, a 0-100 confidence score and the signals behind it. Pass your own Disify key as _apiKey — the keyless anonymous quota is shared and usually spent.

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`domain`	Yes	The domain name to check, e.g. "mailinator.com".
`_apiKey`	No	Optional but recommended: your own Disify API key (BYO — Pipeworx does not supply one). Without it the call uses the anonymous tier, whose daily quota is shared across all Pipeworx callers and is usually exhausted. Get one at disify.com.

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description
`domain`	Yes	The domain that was checked
`dns_valid`	Yes	Whether DNS records exist for the domain
`disposable`	Yes	Whether the domain is associated with disposable email services
`whitelisted`	Yes	Whether the domain is whitelisted

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed1 schema field changedSep 25, 2026
- changedOutput schema / properties / whitelisted / type
```
Previous value: -"boolean"New value: +[
+  "boolean",
+  "null"
+]
```

Changed1 schema field changedSep 1, 2026

addedInput schema / properties / _apiKey

Added value: +{
+  "description": "Optional but recommended: your own Disify API key (BYO — Pipeworx does not supply one). Without it the call uses the anonymous tier, whose daily quota is shared across all Pipeworx callers and is usually exhausted. Get one at disify.com.",
+  "type": "string"
+}

Changed1 schema field changedMay 8, 2026

changedOutput schema / (root)

Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+  "properties": {
+    "disposable": {
+      "description": "Whether the domain is associated with disposable email services",
+      "type": "boolean"
+    },
+    "dns_valid": {
+      "description": "Whether DNS records exist for the domain",
+      "type": "boolean"
+    },
+    "domain": {
+      "description": "The domain that was checked",
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "whitelisted": {
+      "description": "Whether the domain is whitelisted",
+      "type": "boolean"
+    }
+  },
+  "required": [
+    "domain",
+    "dns_valid",
+    "disposable",
+    "whitelisted"
+  ],
+  "type": "object"
+}

Changed1 schema field changedMay 6, 2026

addedInput schema / examples

Added value: +[
+  {
+    "domain": "mailinator.com"
+  },
+  {
+    "domain": "gmail.com"
+  }
+]

First observedApr 14, 2026

TDQS

A4.5/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already carry the read-only/idempotent safety profile; the description adds discrete behavioral facts: the response contains a risk assessment, a 0-100 confidence score, and underlying signals. It also surfaces the shared anonymous quota and keyless-tier exhaustion, which is genuinely useful operational context. No contradiction with annotations.

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?

Three sentences: purpose, output summary, and key guidance. It is front-loaded and every sentence earns its place, with no redundant phrasing.

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?

An output schema exists, so the response shape is already covered. The only operational caveats—key ownership and quota exhaustion—are stated, making this complete for a tool of this complexity.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds real value on _apiKey: Pipeworx does not supply one, the anonymous tier's quota is shared and usually spent, and keys come from disify.com. The domain parameter adds nothing beyond what the schema already provides, which is acceptable.

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 precise verb ('Check') and a specific resource ('domain') against a specific criterion (disposable or temporary email services). It also says it returns a risk assessment, so the tool's job is unambiguous and separable from siblings like validate_email.

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 gives clear task context: checking a domain for disposable-email association. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, but the distinction from validate_email is easy for an agent to infer.

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

All Disify 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.