Skip to main content
Glama
deenesjakoruzh
MailboxValidator

MailboxValidator Email Validation MCP Server

Official
by MailboxValidator
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussions(1)Admin
TypeScript
Hybrid

MailboxValidator MCP 服务器

这是一个用于 MailboxValidator API 的简单模型上下文协议 (MCP) 服务器实现。它将返回电子邮件地址的验证结果。

mcp-mailboxvalidator MCP 服务器

功能

  • 全面的电子邮件验证：通过检查语法、DNS、MX 服务器、高风险、抑制列表等，检查电子邮件地址是否可达。

  • 一次性电子邮件：检查电子邮件地址是否来自临时/一次性电子邮件提供商。

  • 免费电子邮件：检查电子邮件地址是否来自免费电子邮件提供商。

要求

此 MCP 服务器需要 API 密钥。您也可以注册获取免费 API 密钥，每月最多可享受 300 次查询。

此设置还需要使用 Node.js 和 npm，可从 Node.js 网站下载。

设置

按照以下步骤在 Claude Desktop 中使用此 MCP 服务器：

  1. 将存储库下载到本地。

  2. 在项目文件夹内运行以下命令以安装依赖项并构建服务器。

npm install
npm run build

  1. 确保您已安装 Claude Desktop，如果没有，请从此处下载（适用于 Windows 和 MacOS 用户），或按照此指南操作（适用于 Linux 用户）。

  2. 在您选择的编辑器中打开 claude_desktop_config.json，如果您还没有该文件，请按照此指南创建一个。

  3. 将以下内容添加到您的 claude_desktop_config.json 中：

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

  1. 请记住将 index.js 的路径替换为您本地计算机上 MailboxValidator MCP 服务器的实际路径。

  2. 要获取您的 API 密钥，只需登录到您的仪表板即可获取。将上述内容中的 <YOUR_API_KEY> 替换为您的实际 API 密钥。

  3. 保存更改后重启 Claude Desktop，您应该会在 Search and tools 菜单中看到它。

使用方法

只需在 Claude Desktop 的聊天中输入关于电子邮件地址的查询即可。一些示例查询如下：

  • (email) 是有效的电子邮件地址吗？

  • (email) 是虚假电子邮件吗？

  • (email) 是免费电子邮件吗？

在 Claude Desktop 中，模型将根据 MailboxValidator MCP 服务器返回的结果自动生成输出。

环境变量

MAILBOXVALIDATOR_API_KEY

免费的 MailboxValidator API 密钥允许您每月查询最多 300 个电子邮件地址。如果您需要更多，可以注册付费 API 计划。

工具

validate_email

描述 验证给定的电子邮件地址。它通过检查语法、DNS、MX 服务器、一次性列表等，帮助用户确定电子邮件地址是否可能可达。

参数 email (str)：要验证的电子邮件地址。

返回 包含验证数据的 JSON 字符串。结果包括以下字段：

  • Syntax：检查电子邮件地址是否符合电子邮件地址应有的格式。

  • DNS & MX Server：检查域 DNS 是否指定了 MX 服务器。

  • Network & Connectivity：尝试连接到 MX 服务器以确保其正常运行。

  • Greylisting：检查 MX 服务器是否使用了可能导致发送到该地址的电子邮件退回的灰名单。

  • Disposable List：检查电子邮件域是否来自临时或一次性电子邮件提供商。

  • High Risk & Suppressed List：检查电子邮件用户名看起来是否具有高风险，或者电子邮件地址是否在抑制列表中。

  • Others：检查电子邮件的信誉评分等等。

如果请求失败，该工具将返回一个错误消息字符串。

check_disposable_email

描述 检查给定的电子邮件地址是否来自一次性电子邮件提供商。

参数 email (str)：要检查的电子邮件地址。

返回 包含一次性电子邮件数据的 JSON 字符串。结果包括以下字段：

  • Disposable List：检查电子邮件域是否来自临时或一次性电子邮件提供商。

如果请求失败，该工具将返回一个错误消息字符串。

check_free_email

描述 检查给定的电子邮件地址是否来自免费电子邮件提供商。

参数 email (str)：要检查的电子邮件地址。

返回 包含免费电子邮件数据的 JSON 字符串。结果包括以下字段：

  • Free Email List：检查电子邮件域是否来自免费电子邮件提供商。

如果请求失败，该工具将返回一个错误消息字符串。

许可证

请参阅 LICENSE 文件。

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
    -