ClearBounce Email Verification

Verify Email Address

verify_email

Read-onlyIdempotent

Verify a single email address in real time with a live mailbox check. Returns status (deliverable, undeliverable, risky, unknown), a sub-status reason, a 0-100 quality score, and detailed checks (syntax, MX records, disposable, role-based, catch-all, typo detection). Costs 1 credit per call.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`email`	Yes	The email address to verify, e.g. jane@example.com

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`email`	Yes	The address that was checked
`score`	Yes	Quality score from 0 to 100
`checks`	No	Detailed checks: syntax, MX, SMTP, disposable, role, catch-all, typo, risk
`notice`	No	Present only when the balance is low or empty: tells the user where to buy more credits
`status`	Yes	deliverable, undeliverable, risky or unknown
`subStatus`	No	Reason code behind the status
`isDeliverable`	Yes
`creditsRemaining`	No	Credits left on the account after this check

TDQS

A4.5/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and openWorldHint. The description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond annotations: real-time execution, live mailbox check, detailed result structure, and the 1-credit cost per call. No contradiction with annotations exists.

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 with no filler. The core action and key differentiator ('single email address') are front-loaded, followed by output details and cost. Every sentence earns its place.

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?

Given the single parameter, high schema coverage, comprehensive annotations, and presence of an output schema, the description covers all essential operational context: what it does, what it costs, and what it returns. Nothing critical is missing for an agent to invoke it correctly.

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 parameter is already well documented with an example. The description adds 'single' and 'live mailbox check' but does not meaningfully extend the semantic understanding of the email parameter beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 3 applies.

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?

The description uses a specific verb ('verify') with a clear resource ('a single email address') and states the mechanism ('live mailbox check'). The word 'single' explicitly differentiates it from the sibling tool verify_bulk, making its purpose unmistakable.

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 clearly implies the tool is for verifying a single email address in real time, which signals when to use it over verify_bulk or find_email. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or state when-not-to-use conditions, so it stops short of full routing guidance.

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

All ClearBounce Email Verification tools Inspect

Try in Browser

RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

A4.6/5.0

Disambiguation5/5

Each tool has a clearly distinct responsibility: real-time single verification, background bulk verification, bulk job status polling, credit balance lookup, and email discovery. The overlap between verify_email and verify_bulk is resolved by descriptions of real-time vs async batch processing.

Naming Consistency5/5

All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern using lowercase snake_case: verify_email, verify_bulk, check_bulk_status, check_credits, find_email. The naming convention is uniform and predictable.

Tool Count5/5

Five tools is well-scoped for an email verification service: single verification, bulk verification, status polling, credit tracking, and person email discovery. No redundant tools exist and each earns its place.

Completeness4/5

The set covers the core email verification lifecycle well, including single and bulk paths plus credit management. The only minor gap is that detailed bulk result files are accessible via the dashboard rather than the API, and there is no cancel/delete operation for bulk jobs.

Resources

Need Help?