Skip to main content
Glama
deenesjakoruzh
MailboxValidator

MailboxValidator Email Validation MCP Server

Official
by MailboxValidator
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussions(1)Admin
TypeScript
Hybrid

Servidor MCP de MailboxValidator

Esta es una implementación sencilla de servidor del Protocolo de Contexto de Modelo (MCP) para la API de MailboxValidator. Devolverá el resultado de la validación de una dirección de correo electrónico.

mcp-mailboxvalidator MCP server

Características

  • Validación integral de correo electrónico: Comprueba una dirección de correo electrónico para ver si es alcanzable verificando la sintaxis, el DNS, el servidor MX, el alto riesgo, la lista de supresión y más.

  • Correo electrónico desechable: Comprueba una dirección de correo electrónico para ver si proviene de un proveedor de correo electrónico temporal o desechable.

  • Correo electrónico gratuito: Comprueba una dirección de correo electrónico para ver si proviene de un proveedor de correo electrónico gratuito.

Requisitos

Este servidor MCP requiere una clave de API. También puede registrarse para obtener una clave de API gratuita y disfrutar de hasta 300 consultas al mes.

La configuración también utiliza Node.js y npm, que se pueden descargar en el sitio web de Node.js.

Configuración

Siga los pasos para utilizar este servidor MCP con Claude Desktop:

  1. Descargue el repositorio en su equipo local.

  2. Ejecute los siguientes comandos dentro de la carpeta del proyecto para instalar las dependencias y compilar el servidor.

npm install
npm run build

  1. Asegúrese de haber instalado Claude Desktop; si no lo ha hecho, descárguelo desde aquí para usuarios de Windows y MacOS, o siga esta guía para usuarios de Linux.

  2. Abra el archivo claude_desktop_config.json en el editor de su elección; si aún no tiene uno, siga esta guía para crear uno.

  3. Añada lo siguiente a su claude_desktop_config.json:

{
  "mcpServers": {
    "mailboxvalidator": {
      "command": "node",
      "args": [
        "C:\\path\\to\\mcp-mailboxvalidator\\build\\index.js"
      ],
      "env": {
        "MAILBOXVALIDATOR_API_KEY": "<YOUR_API_KEY>"
      }
    }
  }
}

  1. Recuerde reemplazar la ruta de index.js con la ruta real a su servidor MCP de MailboxValidator en su máquina local.

  2. Para obtener su clave de API, simplemente inicie sesión en su panel de control y obténgala desde allí. Reemplace <YOUR_API_KEY> en el código anterior con su clave de API real.

  3. Reinicie Claude Desktop después de guardar los cambios y debería verlo aparecer en el menú Search and tools.

Uso

Simplemente introduzca su consulta sobre la dirección de correo electrónico en un chat en Claude Desktop. Algunos ejemplos de consultas serían:

  • ¿Es (email) una dirección de correo electrónico válida?

  • ¿Es (email) un correo electrónico falso?

  • ¿Es (email) un correo electrónico gratuito?

En Claude Desktop, el modelo generará automáticamente la salida basada en el resultado devuelto por el servidor MCP de MailboxValidator.

Variable de entorno

MAILBOXVALIDATOR_API_KEY

La clave de API gratuita de MailboxValidator le permite consultar hasta 300 correos electrónicos al mes. Si necesita más, puede registrarse en un plan de API de pago.

Herramienta

validate_email

Descripción Valida la dirección de correo electrónico proporcionada. Ayuda a los usuarios a determinar si una dirección de correo electrónico es potencialmente alcanzable comprobando la sintaxis, el DNS, el servidor MX, la lista de desechables y más.

Argumentos email (str): La dirección de correo electrónico a validar.

Retorno Una cadena JSON que contiene los datos de validación. El resultado incluye los siguientes campos:

  • Syntax: Comprueba que la dirección de correo electrónico se ajuste al formato correcto.

  • DNS & MX Server: Comprueba que el DNS del dominio tenga un servidor MX especificado.

  • Network & Connectivity: Intenta la conexión con el servidor MX para asegurarse de que esté operativo.

  • Greylisting: Comprueba si el servidor MX utiliza greylisting, lo que podría causar que el correo enviado a esa dirección sea rechazado.

  • Disposable List: Comprueba si el dominio del correo electrónico proviene de un proveedor de correo electrónico temporal o desechable.

  • High Risk & Suppressed List: Comprueba si el nombre de usuario del correo electrónico parece de alto riesgo o si la dirección de correo electrónico se encuentra en una lista de supresión.

  • Others: Comprueba la puntuación de reputación del correo electrónico y mucho más.

Si la solicitud falla, la herramienta devolverá un mensaje de error como cadena.

check_disposable_email

Descripción Comprueba si la dirección de correo electrónico proporcionada proviene de un proveedor de correo electrónico desechable.

Argumentos email (str): La dirección de correo electrónico a comprobar.

Retorno Una cadena JSON que contiene los datos de correo electrónico desechable. El resultado incluye los siguientes campos:

  • Disposable List: Comprueba si el dominio del correo electrónico proviene de un proveedor de correo electrónico temporal o desechable.

Si la solicitud falla, la herramienta devolverá un mensaje de error como cadena.

check_free_email

Descripción Comprueba si la dirección de correo electrónico proporcionada proviene de un proveedor de correo electrónico gratuito.

Argumentos email (str): La dirección de correo electrónico a comprobar.

Retorno Una cadena JSON que contiene los datos de correo electrónico gratuito. El resultado incluye los siguientes campos:

  • Free Email List: Comprueba si el dominio del correo electrónico proviene de un proveedor de correo electrónico gratuito.

Si la solicitud falla, la herramienta devolverá un mensaje de error como cadena.

Licencia

Consulte el archivo LICENSE.

Available Tools

3 tools
check_disposable_emailB

Checks if an email address is a disposable email using MailboxValidator.

ParametersJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
emailAddressYesEmail address to check.

TDQS

B3.1/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

No annotations; description only mentions the service used. Does not disclose any behavioral traits such as rate limits, authentication needs, or error handling.

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?

Single sentence, no fluff, front-loaded with core information.

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

Completeness3/5

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

Low complexity tool with one parameter and no output schema. Description is adequate for basic understanding but lacks usage guidelines and behavioral details.

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 covers 100% of parameters with description. Tool description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema for the single parameter.

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?

Description clearly states it checks disposable email using MailboxValidator. Name and description differentiate from siblings check_free_email and validate_email, but no explicit contrast.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus siblings or alternatives. No context or exclusions provided.

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

check_free_emailB

Checks if an email address is a free email using MailboxValidator.

ParametersJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
emailAddressYesEmail address to check.

TDQS

B3.1/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

No annotations provided; description only says 'checks' without disclosing if it's a read-only API call, potential side effects, or response details.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Single sentence, front-loaded with the action, no fluff. However, it could be slightly more informative without losing conciseness.

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?

No output schema, but description fails to explain the return value or what 'free email' means, leaving an agent without full context.

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 covers 100% of the single parameter with a description, so baseline is 3; description adds no extra meaning beyond what schema already provides.

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 clearly states the tool checks if an email address is a free email using MailboxValidator, which distinguishes it from siblings like check_disposable_email and validate_email.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus siblings (check_disposable_email, validate_email) or context about prerequisites.

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

validate_emailA

Checks if an email address is valid and reachable using MailboxValidator.

ParametersJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
emailAddressYesEmail address to validate.

TDQS

A3.8/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It mentions the use of MailboxValidator but does not disclose behavioral details such as API costs, rate limits, or what 'reachable' entails. Basic transparency is achieved but not enriched.

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 conveys the essential functionality without any extraneous words. It is front-loaded and efficient.

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?

For a simple tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description provides sufficient context about its purpose and service. However, it could be more complete by hinting at the response format or what 'reachable' means.

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 coverage is 100% and the schema description for emailAddress is adequate. The tool description adds context about the validation service but does not add meaning beyond what the schema provides, so baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 clearly states the tool checks if an email address is valid and reachable using MailboxValidator. It uses a specific verb and resource, and the mention of 'valid and reachable' distinguishes it from sibling tools that check for disposable or free emails.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines3/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description implies usage for general email validation but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus siblings like check_disposable_email or check_free_email. No guidance on prerequisites or exclusions is provided.

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

Tool Schema Changelog

Recent tool additions, removals, and schema changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. 3 tool updatesv1.0.0
    • First observedcheck_disposable_email
    • First observedcheck_free_email
    • First observedvalidate_email
Deploy Server
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

TDQS

A3.7/5.0

Scored across 3 tools

Disambiguation5/5

Each tool targets a distinct aspect of email validation: disposable, free, and general validity/reachability. There is no overlap in their purposes.

Naming Consistency5/5

All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern (check_disposable_email, check_free_email, validate_email) with snake_case, making them predictable.

Tool Count5/5

Three tools is a reasonable and focused set for an email validation server, covering key functions without unnecessary bloat.

Completeness4/5

The set covers primary email validation needs (disposable, free, general validity). Minor gaps like syntax-only checks are absent, but the core surface is solid.

Maintenance

ActivityInactive
ResponsivenessNo issues

Resources

Related MCP Connectors

Related MCP Servers

  • email-validator-api

    lazymac2x
    F
    license
    Not graded
    quality
    D
    maintenance
    Comprehensive email validation MCP server that checks syntax, MX records, disposable domains, role-based accounts, SPF/DKIM, typo suggestions, and risk scoring.
    -

  • inboxvalid-mcp

    vigneshachar283
    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
    -

  • Email Verification MCP Server

    satvikkesarwani
    F
    license
    B
    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.
    3
    -