Skip to main content
Glama
Garoth

SendGrid MCP Server

by Garoth

validate_email

Check email address validity using SendGrid's verification service to ensure deliverability and reduce bounce rates.

Instructions

Validate an email address using SendGrid

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
emailYesEmail address to validate

Implementation Reference

  • Core handler function that executes the email validation logic using SendGrid's /v3/validations/email API endpoint.
    async validateEmail(email: string) {
      const [response] = await this.client.request({
        method: 'POST',
        url: '/v3/validations/email',
        body: { email }
      });
      return response.body;
    }
  • Dispatcher handler in handleToolCall that invokes the service method and formats the response as MCP tool output.
    case 'validate_email':
      const validation = await service.validateEmail(args.email);
      return { content: [{ type: 'text', text: JSON.stringify(validation, null, 2) }] };
  • Input schema defining the required 'email' parameter for the validate_email tool.
    inputSchema: {
      type: 'object',
      properties: {
        email: {
          type: 'string',
          description: 'Email address to validate'
        }
      },
      required: ['email']
    }
  • Tool registration definition including name, description, and input schema in getToolDefinitions.
    {
      name: 'validate_email',
      description: 'Validate an email address using SendGrid',
      inputSchema: {
        type: 'object',
        properties: {
          email: {
            type: 'string',
            description: 'Email address to validate'
          }
        },
        required: ['email']
      }
    },
Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It mentions 'using SendGrid' which hints at external service usage, but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like rate limits, authentication needs, error handling, or what validation entails (e.g., syntax check, deliverability). This is a significant gap for a tool with no annotation coverage.

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 a single, efficient sentence with zero waste. It's front-loaded with the core purpose and method, making it easy to parse. Every word earns its place without redundancy or unnecessary elaboration.

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

Completeness2/5

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

Given no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks details on what the validation returns (e.g., validity status, reasons for failure), error conditions, or integration specifics. For a tool interacting with an external service like SendGrid, this leaves critical gaps for an agent to use it effectively.

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%, with the single parameter 'email' well-documented in the schema. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond implying validation of an email address, which is already clear from the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 clearly states the action ('validate') and resource ('email address'), specifying the method ('using SendGrid'). It distinguishes from siblings like 'send_email' or contact management tools by focusing on validation rather than sending or CRUD operations. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from all siblings, just implies a different purpose.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives is provided. The description doesn't mention prerequisites, use cases, or comparisons with sibling tools. It's implied this is for validation before sending emails, but this isn't stated, leaving the agent to infer usage context.

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

Install Server

Other Tools

Latest Blog Posts

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/Garoth/sendgrid-mcp'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server