Skip to main content
Glama
KumarManglam-123

inboxvalid-mcp

inboxvalid-mcp

An MCP (Model Context Protocol) server built with TypeScript and Node.js that exposes a mock email verification tool (verify_email) over stdio transport.


Getting Started

Prerequisites

  • Node.js 18+ (or 20+)

  • npm 9+

Installation & Build

# Clone or navigate to the directory
cd inboxvalid-mcp

# Install dependencies
npm install

# Build TypeScript to dist/
npm run build

# Run unit tests
npm test

# Run the console demo
npm run demo

Starting the Server

npm start
# or directly: node dist/server.js

Related MCP server: mcp-email-sender

Testing with the MCP Inspector

You can test inboxvalid-mcp interactively in the official MCP Inspector:

npx @modelcontextprotocol/inspector node dist/server.js
  1. Open the inspector URL shown in the terminal (usually http://localhost:5173 or similar).

  2. Connect to the stdio transport.

  3. Select verify_email from the Tools tab.

  4. Provide an argument such as:

    {
      "address": "user@gmail.com"
    }
  5. Click Run Tool to inspect the structured response.


Tool Interface: verify_email

Input Schema

{
  "address": "string (email address to verify)"
}

Output Schema

{
  "email": "user@gmail.com",
  "status": "valid",
  "reasons": [],
  "checks": {
    "syntaxValid": true,
    "disposableDomain": false,
    "mxPlausible": true
  },
  "latencyMs": 120
}

Interface Design Choices

  1. Structured JSON vs Plain Text: LLMs and agentic pipelines require predictable, machine-parseable outputs to make reliable branching decisions (e.g. asking the user for a new email vs proceeding with signup). Structured JSON prevents ambiguous text parsing errors.

  2. Three-State Status (valid | invalid | risky) instead of Binary (valid | invalid): Email verification in practice is probabilistic. Syntax failure is binary (invalid), but disposable domains or unverified MX servers don't always mean the inbox cannot receive mail—they signal elevated fraud or deliverability risk. A risky state allows consuming systems to decide custom business logic (e.g. challenge with 2FA, flag for manual review, or display a warning) rather than forcing an artificial pass/fail.

  3. Separated checks in Response: Exposing granular flags (syntaxValid, disposableDomain, mxPlausible) alongside the high-level status and human-readable reasons lets downstream callers inspect exactly which rule triggered without reverse-engineering error messages.


Error Handling & Retry/Backoff Reasoning

  • Fail-Fast Syntax Validation: If email syntax fails regex checks, execution terminates immediately without triggering network operations or retry loops.

  • Exponential Backoff with Jitter: Mock MX lookups are wrapped in a generic retry utility (withRetry) that attempts up to 3 times with exponential backoff (baseDelay * 2^(attempt - 1)) plus randomized jitter. Jitter prevents thundering herd issues under concurrent load.

  • Fail-Open vs Fail-Closed Strategy: When external verification/MX lookup exhausts all retries, the server fails open with caution: instead of throwing an unhandled exception or returning invalid, it returns status: "risky" with reason "verification service unavailable, defaulting to caution".

    • Why: Crashing the MCP tool breaks the agent's execution loop. Rejecting valid users because of a transient network blip causes false positives and bad UX. Flagging as risky keeps the pipeline resilient while alerting callers to proceed carefully.


Assumptions

  • Mock Verification Engine: Simulates network latency (50–200ms) and uses a deterministic list of known reputable mail providers (gmail.com, outlook.com, yahoo.com, icloud.com, proton.me, etc.) to provide reproducible demo results without live SMTP/DNS queries.

  • Static Disposable List: Bundles a local disposableDomains.json file representing ~18 known temporary email services (mailinator.com, 10minutemail.com, yopmail.com, etc.).

  • Transport: Standard stdio transport for local integration with LLM hosts (Claude Desktop, MCP Inspector, etc.).


Production Readiness Roadmap

To transition this server to production:

  1. Real DNS MX Resolution: Replace mock MX logic with Node's native node:dns/promises (dns.resolveMx(domain)), inspecting record priority and fallback A records.

  2. Real-time Disposable & Fraud Feed: Integrate with live disposable domain feeds or APIs (e.g. Kickbox, Debounce, or daily synchronized blocklists).

  3. Caching Layer: Add an in-memory (LRU) or Redis cache keyed by domain to prevent redundant DNS lookups for popular domains (gmail.com, outlook.com), dramatically lowering latency and upstream traffic.

  4. SMTP Handshake / Mailbox Ping: Optional RCPT TO verification with connection pooling and strict timeout handling where deliverability guarantees are critical.

  5. Rate Limiting & Concurrency Control: Apply token bucket or leaky bucket rate limiting per client to guard upstream DNS resolvers and APIs.


Scalability & Architecture

  • Stateless MCP Server: The server maintains no local session state. Multiple worker processes can run behind load balancers or container orchestrators without coordination.

  • Shared Cache & Feed Storage: In a distributed setup, domain MX cache and disposable lists move to Redis or an edge KV store (Cloudflare Workers KV, AWS ElastiCache) for real-time invalidation and synchronized updates.

  • Transport Flexibility: While stdio is ideal for local desktop clients, the server logic is isolated from the transport layer and can be mounted over SSE (Server-Sent Events) or WebSockets for cloud-hosted agent deployments.


Demo

Screenshots of the verify_email tool being invoked via MCP Inspector, showing all three result states:

Valid email Risky email - disposable domain Invalid email syntax

Available Tools

1 tool
verify_emailB

Verify email address syntax, disposable domain status, and MX plausibility

ParametersJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
addressYesThe email address to verify

TDQS

B3.4/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It transparently lists the checks performed (syntax, disposable domain, MX plausibility), but it does not mention whether these checks are live/network-based, what the return format is, or any limitations or side effects. This adds meaningful context but is not fully transparent.

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, concise sentence that contains no fluff or redundant information. It is front-loaded with the primary verb and resource, making it easy to parse quickly.

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?

With no output schema and no annotations, the description leaves out crucial information about the return value or result format. The agent knows what aspects are checked but not what the tool returns (e.g., a boolean, a report, error behavior). For a verification tool, this is a significant gap.

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?

The schema already provides a 100% description coverage for the single parameter 'address'. The tool description does not add any parameter-specific semantics beyond what the schema states, which aligns with the baseline score of 3 for high schema coverage.

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 the specific verb 'verify' and identifies the resource 'email address', while detailing three distinct aspects: syntax, disposable domain status, and MX plausibility. This is a clear and specific purpose statement, even without sibling tools to compare against.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any exclusion criteria. The description only states what the tool does, leaving the agent to infer usage context from the name and description.

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

TDQS

A3.6/5.0
Disambiguation5/5

With only one tool, there is no possibility of ambiguity. The tool's purpose is clearly stated and distinct.

Naming Consistency5/5

The single tool name 'verify_email' follows a clear verb_noun pattern, which is consistent and predictable.

Tool Count3/5

The server has only one tool, which feels thin for a general-purpose email verification service. However, for a narrowly scoped utility, the single tool could be acceptable, making it borderline.

Completeness3/5

The tool covers syntax, disposable domain status, and MX plausibility, but lacks SMTP-level verification or mailbox existence checks. This leaves a significant gap for a service named 'inboxvalid'.

Maintenance

ActivityMaintained
ResponsivenessSyncing

Resources

Unclaimed servers have limited discoverability.

Looking for Admin?

If you are the server author, to access and configure the admin panel.

Related MCP Connectors

Related MCP Servers

  • A
    license
    Not graded
    quality
    C
    maintenance
    An MCP server that enables AI agents to validate email addresses and send emails via SMTP with zero external dependencies.
    MIT
  • F
    license
    A
    quality
    B
    maintenance
    An MCP server that exposes a verify_email tool for checking email syntax, disposable domains, and MX records, returning a structured validity result.
    1
  • F
    license
    Not graded
    quality
    C
    maintenance
    An MCP server that provides email verification, returning valid, invalid, or risky status with detailed checks and metadata. It enables verifying email addresses via a simple tool interface.

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/KumarManglam-123/inboxvalid-mcp'

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