Skip to main content
Glama
deenesjakoruzh
MailboxValidator

MailboxValidator Email Validation MCP Server

Official
by MailboxValidator
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussions(1)Admin
TypeScript
Hybrid

MailboxValidator MCP 서버

이것은 MailboxValidator API를 위한 간단한 MCP(Model Context Protocol) 서버 구현입니다. 이메일 주소에 대한 검증 결과를 반환합니다.

mcp-mailboxvalidator MCP 서버

기능

  • 포괄적인 이메일 검증: 구문, DNS, MX 서버, 고위험군, 수신 거부 목록 등을 확인하여 이메일 주소의 도달 가능 여부를 검사합니다.

  • 일회용 이메일: 이메일 주소가 임시/일회용 이메일 제공업체에서 생성된 것인지 확인합니다.

  • 무료 이메일: 이메일 주소가 무료 이메일 제공업체에서 생성된 것인지 확인합니다.

요구 사항

이 MCP 서버는 API 키가 필요합니다. 가입하여 무료 API 키를 받으면 매월 최대 300건의 쿼리를 사용할 수 있습니다.

또한 설정에는 Node.js와 npm이 필요하며, Node.js 웹사이트에서 다운로드할 수 있습니다.

설정

Claude Desktop에서 이 MCP 서버를 사용하려면 다음 단계를 따르세요:

  1. 저장소를 로컬로 다운로드합니다.

  2. 프로젝트 폴더 내에서 다음 명령어를 실행하여 종속성을 설치하고 서버를 빌드합니다.

npm install
npm run build

  1. Claude Desktop이 설치되어 있는지 확인하세요. 설치되어 있지 않다면 Windows 및 MacOS 사용자는 여기에서 다운로드하고, Linux 사용자는 이 가이드를 따르세요.

  2. 원하는 편집기에서 claude_desktop_config.json을 엽니다. 아직 파일이 없다면 이 가이드를 따라 생성하세요.

  3. claude_desktop_config.json에 다음 내용을 추가합니다:

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

  1. index.js의 경로를 로컬 머신에 있는 MailboxValidator MCP 서버의 실제 경로로 변경해야 합니다.

  2. API 키를 얻으려면 로그인하여 대시보드에서 확인하세요. 위 설정의 <YOUR_API_KEY>를 실제 API 키로 교체하세요.

  3. 변경 사항을 저장한 후 Claude Desktop을 다시 시작하면 Search and tools 메뉴에 나타날 것입니다.

사용법

Claude Desktop 채팅창에 이메일 주소에 대한 질문을 입력하세요. 예시 질문은 다음과 같습니다:

  • (email)은 유효한 이메일 주소인가요?

  • (email)은 가짜 이메일인가요?

  • (email)은 무료 이메일인가요?

Claude Desktop에서 모델은 MailboxValidator MCP 서버가 반환한 결과를 바탕으로 자동으로 답변을 생성합니다.

환경 변수

MAILBOXVALIDATOR_API_KEY

무료 MailboxValidator API 키를 사용하면 매월 최대 300개의 이메일을 쿼리할 수 있습니다. 더 많은 쿼리가 필요한 경우 유료 API 플랜을 가입할 수 있습니다.

도구

validate_email

설명 제공된 이메일 주소를 검증합니다. 구문, DNS, MX 서버, 일회용 목록 등을 확인하여 이메일 주소의 도달 가능 여부를 판단하도록 돕습니다.

인자 email (str): 검증할 이메일 주소.

반환값 검증 데이터가 포함된 JSON 문자열. 결과에는 다음 필드가 포함됩니다:

  • Syntax: 이메일 주소가 올바른 형식인지 확인합니다.

  • DNS & MX Server: 도메인 DNS에 MX 서버가 지정되어 있는지 확인합니다.

  • Network & Connectivity: MX 서버에 연결을 시도하여 작동 여부를 확인합니다.

  • Greylisting: MX 서버가 그레이리스팅을 사용하여 이메일 반송을 유발할 수 있는지 확인합니다.

  • Disposable List: 이메일 도메인이 임시 또는 일회용 이메일 제공업체인지 확인합니다.

  • High Risk & Suppressed List: 이메일 사용자 이름이 고위험군인지 또는 수신 거부 목록에 있는지 확인합니다.

  • Others: 이메일의 평판 점수 등을 확인합니다.

요청이 실패하면 도구는 오류 메시지를 문자열로 반환합니다.

check_disposable_email

설명 제공된 이메일 주소가 일회용 이메일 제공업체인지 확인합니다.

인자 email (str): 확인할 이메일 주소.

반환값 일회용 이메일 데이터가 포함된 JSON 문자열. 결과에는 다음 필드가 포함됩니다:

  • Disposable List: 이메일 도메인이 임시 또는 일회용 이메일 제공업체인지 확인합니다.

요청이 실패하면 도구는 오류 메시지를 문자열로 반환합니다.

check_free_email

설명 제공된 이메일 주소가 무료 이메일 제공업체인지 확인합니다.

인자 email (str): 확인할 이메일 주소.

반환값 무료 이메일 데이터가 포함된 JSON 문자열. 결과에는 다음 필드가 포함됩니다:

  • Free Email List: 이메일 도메인이 무료 이메일 제공업체인지 확인합니다.

요청이 실패하면 도구는 오류 메시지를 문자열로 반환합니다.

라이선스

LICENSE 파일을 참조하세요.

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
    -