email-extractor
Server Details
Extracts emails from texts. x402 payment required (testnet USDC).
- Status
- Healthy
- Last Tested
- Transport
- Streamable HTTP
- URL
Available Tools
1 toolemail_extractoremail_extractorCInspect
Extracts emails from texts. x402 payment required (testnet USDC).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| texts | Yes | メールアドレスを探したいテキストの配列 | |
| dedupe | No | ||
| payment | No | x402 payment payload (base64 JSON), signed EIP-712 exact/transferWithAuthorization. Omit on the first call — the tool will return payment requirements (accepts[]) as an error result. | |
| maxPerText | No |
TDQS
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
There are no annotations, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that payment is required, which is useful, but it omits critical behavioral details such as the need to call without payment first to receive 'accepts[]' requirements, or that it returns errors for missing payment. The schema's payment parameter covers some of this, but the description itself is thin.
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 extremely short and to the point, which is efficient, but it under-specifies important operational context like the payment flow. It is brief but not optimally structured because the payment mention is vague without details on the first-call behavior.
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 4 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations. The description is too minimal to guide an agent through the non-trivial payment workflow (first call without payment, receiving accepts[], then retrying with a signed payload). Important behavioral context is missing.
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?
The description adds no parameter semantics beyond what the input schema already provides. Schema coverage is 50% (texts and payment described, dedupe and maxPerText undocumented), and the description does not compensate for the missing parameter meaning or clarify how they behave.
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 states a clear verb ('Extracts') and resource ('emails from texts'), which accurately conveys the tool's core function. It does not differentiate from siblings because none are provided, but the purpose is specific enough for an agent to understand what the tool does.
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 gives no guidance on when to use this tool or any alternatives. It does mention a payment requirement, which is a precondition, but does not explain the usage context, workflow, or any exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Frequently Asked Questions
Claiming proves that you control a remote MCP connector. It does not move, proxy, or interrupt the server.
Open the connector listing, choose Claim ownership, and sign in to Glama.
Complete one verification method:
GitHub identity — fastest for official registry listings. For a namespace such as
io.github.alice/server, link the matching GitHub user or an account that owns the GitHub organization, then choose Claim with GitHub.HTTP challenge — works when you can deploy a public file. Generate a token, publish the exact JSON Glama shows at
/.well-known/glama.jsonon the same origin as the connector, then choose Check HTTP challenge.DNS challenge — works when you control DNS but cannot change the server. Generate a token, create the exact TXT record Glama shows, wait for it to propagate, then choose Check DNS challenge.
After verification, Glama sends a confirmation email and gives you access to listing details, thumbnails, health checks, and analytics. Keep the HTTP file or DNS record in place: Glama periodically checks it and ownership remains verified while the token is discoverable.
The HTTP ownership file has this structure:
{
"$schema": "https://glama.ai/mcp/schemas/connector.json",
"claim": "glama_claim_..."
}Claim tokens are opaque, stable, and bound to the signed-in Glama account. They contain no email address or other personal information. If Glama can no longer discover a verified HTTP or DNS token, it starts a seven-day grace period before removing claim-based access. Restore the same token during that period to keep ownership verified. Never publish an email address, Glama session token, GitHub token, or connector credential as ownership proof.
If verification fails, confirm that you copied the current token exactly. The HTTP file must be public, return valid JSON with a successful HTTP response, and stay on the connector's origin. DNS changes may need more time to propagate. A claim cannot transfer to a different origin or hostname: if the connector target changes, Glama starts the grace period and the new target must be claimed separately after the previous claim is released.
For a connector linked to the official MCP Registry, registry updates continue to replace its name, description, and URL by default. After claiming, open Manage connector and enable Use Glama listing details as the source of truth if edits made on Glama should be preserved. Categories and thumbnails are always managed on Glama; registry linkage and technical connection settings continue to sync.
Control your server's listing on Glama, including description and metadata
Access analytics and receive server usage reports
Get monitoring and health status updates for your server
Feature your server to boost visibility and reach more users
To improve your MCP server's ranking:
Claim ownership of the server listing
Complete the server profile with an accurate description and thumbnail
Provide a test profile so Glama can connect to and evaluate the server
Keep tool definitions clear and complete to earn a high Tool Definition Quality Score (TDQS)
Route real usage through the Glama Gateway; more recorded successful server uses also improve the ranking
For users:
Full audit trail – every tool call is logged with inputs and outputs for compliance and debugging
Granular tool control – enable or disable individual tools per connector to limit what your AI agents can do
Centralized credential management – store and rotate API keys and OAuth tokens in one place
Change alerts – get notified when a connector changes its schema, adds or removes tools, or updates tool definitions, so nothing breaks silently
For server owners:
Proven adoption – public usage metrics on your listing show real-world traction and build trust with prospective users
Tool-level analytics – see which tools are being used most, helping you prioritize development and documentation
Direct user feedback – users can report issues and suggest improvements through the listing, giving you a channel you would not have otherwise
The connector status is unhealthy when Glama is unable to successfully connect to the server. This can happen for several reasons:
The server is experiencing an outage
The URL of the server is wrong
Credentials required to access the server are missing or invalid
If you are the owner of this MCP connector and would like to make modifications to the listing, including providing test credentials for accessing the server, please contact support@glama.ai.
Discussions
No comments yet. Be the first to start the discussion!
Related MCP Connectors
Pay-per-use web extract, token prices, and wallet balances via x402 USDC micropayments.
People-enrich: work email + phone, company & domain enrichment. Pay-per-call USDC, no key.
Pay-per-request webpage-to-Markdown extraction for AI agents. $0.005 USDC via x402 on Solana.
AI web extraction: send URLs + a JSON Schema, get clean structured data. Pay-per-use via x402.
Related MCP Servers
- AlicenseNot gradedqualityBmaintenanceDetect PII in text: emails, phones, SSNs, credit cards, IPs, addresses. Pay-per-call via x402 micropayments without API keys or signup.MIT
- AlicenseNot gradedqualityDmaintenanceEnables sending transactional emails with text or HTML body, delivery status, and message ID via Resend. Pay-per-call using x402 micropayments (USDC on Base L2), no API key or signup required.MIT
- AlicenseNot gradedqualityBmaintenanceEnables OCR text extraction from images via URLs or base64, with pay-per-call using x402 micropayments (USDC on Base L2).MIT
- AlicenseAqualityBmaintenanceConvert PDFs to structured JSON. Extract invoices, bank statements, contracts, and more. Pay per call via x402 USDC.58MIT
Glama MCP Gateway
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
TDQS
The server exposes only a single tool, so there is no possibility of confusion between tools. With one tool present, the agent can always select the correct one without any ambiguity. This is inherently the highest level of disambiguation.
With only one tool, naming consistency is trivially satisfied—there are no other tools to compare against. The name 'email_extractor' clearly and accurately describes the tool's function, using a descriptive noun-based pattern that is self-consistent. As there is no mixed convention, consistency is perfect.
A single tool is borderline for a server's scope. While a simple utility like email extraction could be justified as a single-purpose service, it feels thin compared to typical use cases where multiple related operations (e.g., validation, batch processing) might be expected. This places it at the lower end of the appropriate range, earning a score of 3 rather than higher.
The core email extraction function is present, which directly addresses the server's stated purpose. However, there is a minor gap in that no supplemental operations such as deduplication, validation, or formatting are offered. This is not a critical gap, but it prevents a perfect 5, as the surface is just a single operation without any related utilities that would round out the domain.