Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In

Presend MCP Server

by io.github.presendapp
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

Email verification

email_verify
Read-onlyIdempotent

Most complete email check in one call: syntax, MX record, disposable-domain detection and role/generic account detection (e.g. info@, admin@). Prefer it over email_validate and email_disposable unless you need a single signal. Does not probe the mailbox. valid is null (not false) when the MX lookup could not be completed; retry later instead of treating the address as invalid.

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": "email_verify"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
emailYesEmail address to run through combined syntax, disposable-domain, and MX-record checks.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed1 schema field changed
    • changedInput schema / properties / email / description
      Previous value: -""New value: +"Email address to run through combined syntax, disposable-domain, and MX-record checks."
  2. First observed

TDQS

A4.5/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already cover read-only, idempotent, open-world, and non-destructive behavior, so the bar is lower. The description adds critical operational context beyond annotations: it does not probe the mailbox, and valid is null when MX lookup is incomplete, with retry guidance instead of treating the address as invalid.

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, front-loaded with purpose, then alternatives, then the key failure mode. Every sentence earns its place with no redundancy.

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 single-parameter, read-only, open-world tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, alternatives, scope limitation (no mailbox probe), and the crucial null-valid edge case. Nothing an agent needs to select or correctly interpret the call is missing.

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 single email parameter is already fully documented in the schema. The description restates that email is run through the checks but adds no syntax or format meaning beyond what the schema provides, matching the baseline for high 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?

States a specific combined action (syntax, MX, disposable, role/generic checks) and explicitly names the sibling tools it supersedes. An agent can distinguish it from email_validate and email_disposable without opening either schema.

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?

Explicitly says to prefer this over email_validate and email_disposable unless a single signal is needed, and adds that it does not probe the mailbox. This gives clear when-to-use and when-not-to-use guidance.

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

All Presend MCP Server toolsInspect
Try in Browser
Claude Code, inside the Godot 4 editorFlockbay puts an AI agent in the real Godot 4 editor: it writes GDScript, runs your game and fixes what breaks. Free, or bring your own Claude Code or Codex.flockbay.comAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources