validate_emailCheck an email address for deliverability and validity. Analyzes MX records, detects catch-all addresses, and returns associated company information to verify contact quality.
Validate an email address for deliverability and retrieve associated company information. Provides detailed analysis of email validity, MX records, and catch-all detection.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| Yes | |||
| last_name | No | ||
| first_name | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose meaningful behavioral detail about the analysis returned (MX records, catch-all detection). However it says nothing about cost/credit consumption (notable given the sibling get_credits), rate limits, or whether validation is a read-only operation.
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?
Two tight sentences with the primary action front-loaded and the analytical outputs listed second. No filler, though the second sentence is somewhat of a feature list.
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?
With no output schema and no annotations, the description does a reasonable job conveying what the tool returns, but it leaves the two optional name parameters undocumented, provides no usage context relative to siblings, and omits any credit/auth notes for a tool that presumably consumes credits.
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 0% and the description only addresses the email input implicitly. The first_name and last_name parameters are completely unexplained in both the schema and the description, leaving an agent guessing why they would be supplied to a validation call.
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?
States a specific verb+resource ("Validate an email address") plus a secondary capability (retrieving company info) and names the concrete analyses performed (validity, MX records, catch-all detection). It does not explicitly differentiate itself from close siblings like find_email or find_company, so it falls short of a 5.
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?
There is no when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative-tool guidance. An agent must infer that this is the post-lookup verification step rather than the lookup itself; nothing in the text routes it away from find_email.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.