Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Delx MCP Server

Delx MCP Server

by davidmosiah
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
JavaScript
Local

Email Validate

util_email_validate
Read-onlyIdempotent

Check email validity and domain-level delivery records before outreach, signup, or routing to prevent bounces.

Instructions

Validate an email and its domain-level delivery records before outreach, signup, or routing. Delx Agent Utilities are separate from the free witness protocol and may expose x402 utility pricing.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "email": "<email>"
    },
    "name": "util_email_validate"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
emailYesEmail address to validate
timeoutNoTimeout in seconds (1-15)

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.2.8

TDQS

A4/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint. The description adds context about domain-level delivery records validation and potential x402 pricing, which goes beyond annotations.

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 (two sentences) and front-loaded with the core purpose. The second sentence about Delx Agent Utilities and pricing is somewhat tangential but not overly verbose.

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?

The tool has no output schema, and the description does not explain return values or error behavior. For a simple validation tool, this may be acceptable but leaves some gaps.

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% with clear descriptions for both 'email' and 'timeout'. The description repeats the purpose but does not add new meaning beyond the schema, earning the baseline score.

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 validates an email and its domain-level delivery records, specifying use cases ('before outreach, signup, or routing'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like `util_dns_lookup` or `util_domain_trust_report`.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description provides clear context for when to use the tool ('before outreach, signup, or routing'), but does not explicitly state when not to use or mention alternatives among the many sibling tools.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools