Skip to main content
Glama
avivshafir

revenuebase-mcp-server

real_time_email_verification

Verify email addresses instantly to ensure deliverability and reduce bounce rates for marketing campaigns.

Instructions

Verifies a single email address using the Revenuebase API.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
emailYes

Implementation Reference

  • server.py:71-87 (handler)
    The handler function for real_time_email_verification, decorated with @mcp.tool(). It verifies a single email by posting to the Revenuebase API endpoint and returns the JSON response.
    @mcp.tool()
    def real_time_email_verification(email: str) -> dict:
        """
        Verifies a single email address using the Revenuebase API.
        """
        if not api_key:
            raise RuntimeError("Environment variable REVENUEBASE_API_KEY is not set")
        url = "https://api.revenuebase.ai/v1/process-email"
        headers = {
            "x-key": api_key,
            "Content-Type": "application/json",
            "Accept": "application/json",
        }
        payload = {"email": email}
        resp = requests.post(url, json=payload, headers=headers, verify=False)
        resp.raise_for_status()
        return resp.json()
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 states the action ('verifies') but doesn't describe what verification entails (e.g., checks for validity, deliverability, or spam traps), whether it's synchronous or real-time, error handling, or any rate limits. This leaves significant gaps for a tool with no annotation coverage.

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, efficient sentence with zero waste: 'Verifies a single email address using the Revenuebase API.' It's front-loaded with the core action and appropriately sized for the tool's apparent simplicity.

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 the lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what the verification returns (e.g., status codes, confidence scores) or behavioral aspects like error cases. For a verification tool with no structured context, this leaves the agent under-informed about how to interpret results.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters2/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The input schema has 1 parameter with 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It mentions 'a single email address' but doesn't specify the format (e.g., valid email syntax) or constraints (e.g., domain requirements). This adds minimal semantic value beyond what's implied by the parameter name 'email'.

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: 'Verifies a single email address using the Revenuebase API.' It specifies the verb ('verifies'), resource ('a single email address'), and mechanism ('using the Revenuebase API'). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like batch_email_submission or batch_process_email_status, which likely handle multiple emails or status checks.

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. It doesn't mention siblings like batch_email_submission for multiple emails or queued_process for asynchronous handling, nor does it specify prerequisites such as API key requirements or rate limits. Usage context is implied but not explicit.

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

Install Server

Other Tools

Latest Blog Posts

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/avivshafir/revenuebase-mcp-server'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server