Skip to main content
Glama
avivshafir

atdata-email-verification-mcp-server

by avivshafir
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Remote

Related Servers

Alternatives to atdata-email-verification-mcp-server

No user-submitted related servers found.

    Related 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.
      -

    • tvram-backend-mcp

      amoghar29
      F
      license
      Not graded
      quality
      C
      maintenance
      MCP server that exposes an email verification tool, returning verdicts of valid, invalid, or risky with reasons.
      -

    • 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
      -

    • email-verify

      Baneado98
      A
      license
      A
      quality
      D
      maintenance
      Enables real-time email verification via MCP tools, checking syntax, MX, disposable domains, and optional SMTP probe to determine deliverability with a VALID/RISKY/INVALID verdict.
      2
      5 npm
      MIT
    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

    A4.1/5.0

    Scored across 2 tools

    Disambiguation5/5

    The two tools have clearly distinct purposes: verify_email handles single email verification, while batch_verify_emails processes multiple emails in batch. There is no overlap or ambiguity between them, as each serves a specific use case within the email verification domain.

    Naming Consistency5/5

    Both tools follow a consistent verb_noun naming pattern (verify_email and batch_verify_emails) that clearly indicates their function. The naming is predictable and readable, with no deviations in style or convention.

    Tool Count2/5

    With only 2 tools, the server feels under-scoped for a comprehensive email verification service. While the tools cover basic verification, there are likely missing operations such as checking verification status, managing API keys, or handling bulk results that would enhance completeness.

    Completeness2/5

    The toolset is severely incomplete for an email verification domain. It lacks essential operations like checking verification history, managing batch jobs, or providing domain-level insights. The current tools only offer basic verification without supporting common workflows or lifecycle management.

    Maintenance

    ActivityInactive
    ResponsivenessNo issues

    Resources