Skip to main content
Glama
Email Validator for Agents

Email Validator for Agents

Check email syntax offline (free)

check_email_syntax
Read-onlyIdempotent

Verify and normalize email address syntax locally before deliverability checks. Free, returns one row per input with a reason code flagging invalid formats.

Instructions

WHAT: Check whether strings are syntactically valid email addresses and normalize them (extracts "Name ", lowercases the domain), entirely locally. WHEN TO USE: fast pre-filtering or parsing before calling validate_emails, or when only the format matters. WHEN NOT TO USE: it does not check that the domain exists, has MX records, is disposable, a role account or a typo - use validate_emails (paid) for deliverability. COST: free; pure local function, no network, no APIFY_TOKEN. BEHAVIOR: synchronous and CPU-bound, no rate limit; 10,000 addresses return in well under a second. RETURNS: one "email_syntax" row per input element; reason is null or INVALID_SYNTAX. PARAMETERS: emails: each element is checked on its own and returns exactly one row, in input order (no splitting of comma/semicolon lists, no deduplication - unlike validate_emails). Normalization before checking: surrounding whitespace is trimmed, a trailing "Name " is reduced to addr, and the domain is lowercased (the local part keeps its case). Syntax rules: total <= 254 chars, local part <= 64 chars with no leading/trailing or double dot, domain labels of letters/digits/hyphens and a 2-63 letter TLD; quoted local parts, IP-literal domains and non-ASCII (IDN) addresses are reported as INVALID_SYNTAX here. input always echoes the original string so you can map rows back. EXAMPLE: {"emails":["Jane jane@Example.com"]} -> email "jane@example.com", syntax_valid true, domain "example.com".

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
emailsYesRequired. 1-10000 strings, one address per element; bare "jane@acme.com" or "Name <addr>" form (one row per element, no list splitting). Example: ["Jane <jane@Example.com>","not-an-email"]

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
countYesNumber of rows returned
itemsYesResult rows; each has a "type" field (data rows or machine-readable "error" rows)

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed1 schema field changed
    • changedInput schema / properties / emails / description
      Previous value: -"Required. 1-10000 strings to check; each may be a bare address or \"Name <addr>\" form. Example: [\"Jane <jane@Example.com>\",\"not-an-email\"]"New value: +"Required. 1-10000 strings, one address per element; bare \"jane@acme.com\" or \"Name <addr>\" form (one row per element, no list splitting). Example: [\"Jane <jane@Example.com>\",\"not-an-email\"]"
  2. Addedv1.0.1

TDQS

A4.9/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive/closed-world, and the description adds what they cannot: free, purely local, no APIFY_TOKEN, synchronous and CPU-bound, no rate limit, and a performance guarantee (10k addresses in well under a second). It also discloses the return shape and the INVALID_SYNTAX reason value.

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?

Strongly front-loaded with labeled sections (WHAT, WHEN, COST, BEHAVIOR, RETURNS, PARAMETERS, EXAMPLE) so it scans well, and no sentence is filler. It is nonetheless on the verbose end for a single-parameter tool, with the PARAMETERS block restating normalization details at length.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness5/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given a one-param, locally-executed tool with an output schema already present, the definition covers cost, performance, failure mode, normalization, ordering guarantees, and a worked example. An agent has everything needed to call it correctly and to interpret rows back to inputs.

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

Parameters5/5

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

Goes far beyond the 100% schema coverage: per-element row semantics, no comma/semicolon splitting or deduplication (contrasted with validate_emails), the exact normalization order (trim, unwrap "Name <addr>", lowercase domain only), and concrete syntax limits (254 total, 64 local, 2-63 letter TLD, IDN/quoted/IP-literal rejected). Behavior an agent could not derive from the schema.

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 WHAT clause gives a specific verb and resource (check and normalize email address syntax) and immediately scopes it to local-only operation, which cleanly separates it from validate_emails. An agent can route between the two tools without opening either schema.

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

Usage Guidelines5/5

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

Explicit WHEN TO USE (fast pre-filtering before validate_emails, or when only format matters) and WHEN NOT TO USE (no MX, deliverability, disposable/role/typo checks - use validate_emails instead) with the alternative named. Nothing is left to inference.

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