email_formatGet the email format patterns used by a specific domain
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| domain | Yes | The domain name (e.g., 'stripe.com') |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| data | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Output schema / (root)Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+ "$schema": "http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#",
+ "additionalProperties": false,
+ "properties": {
+ "data": {}
+ },
+ "required": [
+ "data"
+ ],
+ "type": "object"
+}Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safe read-only and open-world nature is covered. The description adds no additional behavioral context such as confidence levels, completeness caveats, or output variability, but it does not contradict the annotations either.
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 a single, clear, front-loaded sentence with no filler. It conveys the essential purpose without redundancy.
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?
For a one-parameter read-only tool with an output schema and annotations covering safety and open-world behavior, the description is largely sufficient. Minor gaps remain around what 'format patterns' concretely returns, but the existing structured metadata compensates for most of this.
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?
Schema description coverage is 100%, and the domain parameter already includes an example and format. The description adds little semantic value beyond referencing 'a specific domain', so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.
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 clearly states the verb ('Get') and resource ('email format patterns') with a specific scope ('used by a specific domain'). It distinguishes the tool's purpose from siblings like email_finder or email_sources by focusing on format patterns, though it does not explicitly name alternatives.
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 implies the tool is for retrieving format patterns for a given domain, but gives no explicit guidance on when to use it over email_finder, email_sources, or other related sibling tools. No exclusions, prerequisites, or alternative routing are provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Several tools have overlapping purposes: email_enrichment and person_enrichment are nearly identical, and every mpp_* tool duplicates a non-MPP tool with only payment method differences. Domain-related tools like domain_search, email_count, and domain_status also blur boundaries, making selection error-prone.
Most tools follow a readable snake_case convention with clear actions like list_, create_, get, and finder/verifier/enrichment suffixes. However, ordering is inconsistent (companies_search vs domain_search, combined_enrichment vs email_finder) and a few vague names like location and autocomplete break the pattern.
38 tools is excessive for this server's scope, especially since 10 are MPP variants that simply duplicate existing functionality with a different payment model. The core feature set could be expressed in roughly half the tools without losing capability.
The toolset covers the core Tomba workflows well: email finding, verification, enrichment, domain/company search, phone lookup, and lead management. Minor gaps exist, such as no update/delete operations for leads and no detailed lead retrieval, but agents can work around these for most prospecting tasks.