Skip to main content
Glama

verify_email_send

Validate email addresses for accuracy and deliverability by sending verification requests through the trykitt service.

Instructions

verify an email using trykitt.

Args:
    email: The email address to verify
    custom_data: Optional custom data to associate with the request

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
emailYes
custom_dataNo

Implementation Reference

  • server.py:24-38 (handler)
    The main handler function for the 'verify_email_send' MCP tool. It is decorated with @mcp.tool() for registration and implements the logic to verify an email by sending a realtime POST request to the TryKitt API endpoint /job/verify_email.
    @mcp.tool()
    async def verify_email_send(email: str, custom_data: Optional[str] = None) -> Dict:
        """
        verify an email using trykitt.
    
        Args:
            email: The email address to verify
            custom_data: Optional custom data to associate with the request
        """
        payload = {"email": email, "realtime": True}
        if custom_data:
            payload["customData"] = custom_data
    
        response = await http_client.post("/job/verify_email", json=payload)
        return response.json()
Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions 'verify an email using trykitt' but fails to explain key traits like whether this is a read-only or mutative operation, what the expected outcome is (e.g., sends an email, returns a status), or any rate limits or authentication needs. This leaves significant gaps in understanding the tool's behavior.

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 brief and front-loaded with the main purpose, followed by parameter details in a structured 'Args:' section. It avoids unnecessary elaboration, but the lack of context and behavioral details means it could be more informative without sacrificing 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 the tool's complexity (2 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'verify' means in practice, what happens after invocation (e.g., sends an email, returns a job ID), or how it relates to sibling tools, leaving 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?

The description lists parameters ('email' and 'custom_data') and notes that 'custom_data' is optional, adding basic semantics beyond the input schema. However, with 0% schema description coverage, it doesn't fully compensate by explaining parameter formats (e.g., email validation rules, custom_data structure), leaving the agent with incomplete information for proper usage.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose3/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description states 'verify an email using trykitt' which provides a basic verb+resource combination, but it's vague about what verification entails (e.g., sending a verification email, checking validity). It doesn't distinguish from siblings like 'find_email' or 'get_job_status', leaving ambiguity about the specific action.

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 is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'find_email' or 'get_job_status'. The description lacks context about prerequisites, such as whether this initiates a verification process or checks an existing one, leaving the agent without clear usage instructions.

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/trykittai-mcp-server'

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