Skip to main content
Glama
enesjakozh
Meerkats-Ai

NeverBounce MCP Server

by Meerkats-Ai
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
JavaScript
Remote

NeverBounce MCP 服务器

这是一个模型上下文协议 (MCP) 服务器，它与 NeverBounce API 集成以提供电子邮件验证功能。

特征

  • 验证电子邮件地址，检查其是否有效、可送达且可以安全发送

Related MCP server: Have I Been Pwned MCP Server

设置

本地设置

  1. 克隆此存储库

  2. 安装依赖项：

    npm install

  3. 根据.env.example创建一个.env文件并添加您的 NeverBounce API 密钥：

    NEVERBOUNCE_API_KEY=your_api_key_here

  4. 构建服务器：

    npm run build

  5. 启动服务器：

    npm start

Docker 设置

  1. 克隆此存储库

  2. 使用 NeverBounce API 密钥创建一个.env文件

  3. 使用 Docker Compose 构建并运行：

    docker-compose up -d

MCP 配置

要将此服务器与 MCP 客户端一起使用，请将以下配置添加到您的 MCP 设置文件中：

{
  "mcpServers": {
    "neverbounce": {
      "command": "node",
      "args": ["path/to/neverbounce/dist/index.js"],
      "env": {
        "NEVERBOUNCE_API_KEY": "your_api_key_here"
      },
      "disabled": false,
      "autoApprove": []
    }
  }
}

可用工具

  • neverbounce_validate_email ：验证电子邮件地址以检查其是否有效且可送达

执照

国际学习中心

Available Tools

1 tool
neverbounce_validate_emailC

Validate an email address to check if it's valid and deliverable.

ParametersJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
emailYesThe email address to validate
timeoutNoTimeout in milliseconds (optional, default: 30000)

TDQS

C2.9/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions validation but does not describe how the validation works (e.g., API call, rate limits, authentication needs, error handling, or what 'deliverable' entails). This leaves significant gaps in understanding the tool's behavior and constraints.

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?

The description is a single, clear sentence that efficiently states the tool's purpose without unnecessary details. It is front-loaded and wastes no words, though 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?

Given no annotations, no output schema, and a simple input schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks details on behavioral traits (e.g., how validation is performed, error responses), and with no output schema, it does not explain return values or result formats. This leaves the agent with insufficient context for effective use.

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 description coverage is 100%, with both parameters ('email' and 'timeout') fully documented in the schema. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, such as format examples or validation criteria. The baseline score of 3 reflects adequate coverage by the schema alone.

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?

The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Validate an email address to check if it's valid and deliverable.' It specifies the verb ('validate') and resource ('email address'), and distinguishes it from other validation types by mentioning both validity and deliverability. However, with no sibling tools provided, it cannot demonstrate explicit differentiation from alternatives.

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?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, prerequisites, or exclusions. It simply states what the tool does without context for application. With no sibling tools mentioned, there is no comparison to other options, leaving the agent without usage direction.

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. 1 tool update
    • First observedneverbounce_validate_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

B3.1/5.0

Scored across 1 tool

Disambiguation5/5

With only one tool, there is no possibility of ambiguity or overlap with other tools. The tool's purpose is clearly defined and distinct by default.

Naming Consistency5/5

A single tool inherently follows a consistent naming pattern, as there are no other tools to compare it against. The tool name 'neverbounce_validate_email' is clear and descriptive.

Tool Count2/5

A single tool is too few for a server dedicated to email validation, as it lacks complementary operations like bulk validation, status checking, or integration with other email-related functions. This minimal scope limits functionality and may require agents to work around gaps.

Completeness2/5

The server is severely incomplete for email validation; it only offers single email validation without support for batch processing, result history, or additional verification features (e.g., disposable email detection). This will likely cause agent failures in more complex workflows.

Maintenance

ActivityInactive
ResponsivenessSyncing

Resources

Related MCP Connectors

Related MCP Servers

  • ClaudePost

    ZilongXue
    A
    license
    A
    quality
    D
    maintenance
    A Model Context Protocol server that provides a seamless email management interface through Claude, allowing users to search, read, and send emails directly through natural language conversations.
    4
    114
    MIT

  • Have I Been Pwned MCP Server

    Cyreslab-AI
    A
    license
    A
    quality
    C
    maintenance
    A Model Context Protocol (MCP) server that provides integration with the Have I Been Pwned API to check if your accounts or passwords have been compromised in data breaches.
    4
    2
    MIT

  • Hatch MCP Server

    Meerkats-Ai
    F
    license
    A
    quality
    D
    maintenance
    A Model Context Protocol server for Hatch API integration that provides tools for finding and verifying contact information including emails, phone numbers, LinkedIn profiles, and company data.
    5
    1
    -

Appeared in Searches