Email Preflight

Email Check Mini

email_check_mini

Check email syntax, MX and local domain classes with the existing API. $0.001 USDC on Base mainnet. MX does not prove mailbox existence. Unpaid calls return x402 v2 requirements for this request. A compatible client may repeat identical arguments with its own PaymentPayload in params._meta["x402/payment"]. The adapter does not sign or settle independently.

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_check_mini"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`email`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedOct 16, 2026

TDQS

B3.3/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does so well: it discloses cost ($0.001 USDC), the x402 v2 payment flow, the retry contract via params._meta, and an honest limitation that MX does not prove mailbox existence. It stops short of describing the result payload or timeouts/rate limits.

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?

Purpose is front-loaded, but the body bundles protocol mechanics, pricing, and a caveat into dense prose, and 'with the existing API' is vague filler. Sentences mostly earn their place but the reading flow is cluttered.

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?

For a one-param tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers payment and one limitation but never describes what a successful result contains (which classes/MX outcomes are returned). The unpaid-path return is covered, the paid-path return is not.

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?

Only one parameter (email, maxLength 320) with 0% schema description coverage; the description implies the email is what gets checked but adds no format, normalization, or encoding detail beyond the schema. Adequate but thin.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Check email syntax, MX and local domain classes'), so the agent knows exactly what is evaluated. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from siblings email_preflight or url_preflight, leaving the 'mini' vs 'preflight' distinction to inference.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines2/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

No when-to-use guidance or alternatives are named despite two closely related sibling tools existing. The payment mechanics are explained, but nothing tells the agent why it should pick this over email_preflight.

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

All Email Preflight 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?