Tomba MCP Server

Mpp Domain Search

mpp_domain_search

Read-only

Search for all email addresses associated with a specific domain using MPP (Machine Payments Protocol). Pay-per-request, no API key required — only an InFlow buyer key.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`page`	No	Page number for pagination
`limit`	No	Maximum number of results to return	10
`domain`	No	The domain to search for emails (e.g., 'example.com')
`company`	No	The company name to search for
`country`	No	Filter by country code (e.g., 'US', 'GB')
`department`	No	Filter by department (e.g., 'executive', 'it', 'marketing')

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`data`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed1 schema field changedSep 2, 2026

changedOutput schema / (root)

Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+  "$schema": "http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#",
+  "additionalProperties": false,
+  "properties": {
+    "data": {}
+  },
+  "required": [
+    "data"
+  ],
+  "type": "object"
+}

First observedAug 7, 2026

TDQS

A4/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Read-only and open-world intent are already in annotations; the description adds valuable behavioral context beyond them, namely that calls are metered/pay-per-request and that authentication uses an InFlow buyer key rather than an API key. It does not detail result pagination or rate limits, but that is a minor gap given the 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?

The description is two sentences with no filler. The core purpose is front-loaded, and the second sentence adds operationally relevant cost/auth details in a compact dash-separated clause.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

With a full output schema, 100% parameter coverage, and read-only/open-world annotations, the description is largely complete. It covers purpose, cost, and auth; it would be slightly stronger if it clarified that a domain is effectively the key input despite all parameters being optional.

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 schema already documents all six optional parameters. The description does not add meaning beyond the 'domain' parameter, which is acceptable but not value-adding; baseline 3 applies.

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?

The description names a specific verb and resource ('Search for all email addresses associated with a specific domain') and ties it to MPP with pay-per-request terms. The behavior is clear, but it does not explicitly contrast with the sibling domain_search or mpp_email_finder, so differentiation relies on inference.

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 concrete invocation context: it is pay-per-request, requires no API key, and needs only an InFlow buyer key. This is clear guidance on when the tool is the right payment/auth path, though it stops short of naming alternatives or stating when not to use it.

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

All Tomba MCP Server 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.