Skip to main content
Glama
fairquery-agent-trust-mcp

fairquery-agent-trust-mcp

Official

Check email syntax, typos, disposable & role (free)

email_check_syntax
Read-onlyIdempotent

Pre-filter signups and lead lists by checking email syntax, normalization, domain typos, disposable domains, role accounts, and free webmail locally before paid deliverability validation.

Instructions

WHAT: Offline email checks: RFC-style syntax + normalization, common domain typo "did you mean" (gmial.com -> gmail.com), disposable/temporary domain (bundled CC0 list, ~thousands of domains), role account (info@, sales@), free webmail provider. WHEN: Fast pre-filtering of signups or lead lists, before paying for email_validate_deliverability. WHEN NOT: Does NOT check DNS/MX - it cannot tell whether the domain receives mail (verdict is "invalid", "risky" or "unknown", never "valid"). Use email_validate_deliverability (paid) for MX/SPF/DMARC. COST: Free; local, no token. RETURNS: Paged "email_check" rows; verdict is invalid | risky | unknown, never valid (dns_checked is always false). BEHAVIOR: No network calls (no DNS/SMTP); synchronous and CPU-bound, no rate limits: 10,000 addresses (the per-call maximum) return in well under a second. PARAMETERS: emails: each element is parsed on its own (one address per element; a comma-separated list in one element is INVALID_SYNTAX, not split). Before checking, "Name " is reduced to addr, a leading "mailto:" is dropped, the domain is lowercased (local part keeps its case), a trailing dot is removed and IDN domains are converted to punycode; the normalized value is returned as email, the original as input. Duplicates are not merged: every element yields one row, in input order. Role detection ignores +tags (sales+eu@ counts as sales@) and disposable matching also covers subdomains of listed domains. limit/offset page those rows; meta.summary always counts verdicts over ALL rows, not just the current page. EXAMPLE: {"emails":["someone@gmial.com"]} -> verdict "risky", reasons ["POSSIBLE_TYPO","DNS_NOT_CHECKED"], did_you_mean "someone@gmail.com".

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
limitNoOptional page size: items to return, integer 1-1000 (default 100). Example: 50
emailsYesRequired. 1-10000 strings, 1-320 chars each, one address per element; bare "jane@acme.com", "Jane <jane@acme.com>" and "mailto:jane@acme.com" forms accepted. Example: ["jane@acme.com","bob@gmial.com"]
offsetNoOptional zero-based number of items to skip, integer 0-1000000 (default 0); pass nextOffset from the previous response, e.g. 100

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
metaNoTool-specific context (summary counts, cost notes, ...)
countYesNumber of items in this page
itemsYesResult rows for this page
totalYesTotal items before paging
offsetYesOffset of the first item in this page
hasMoreYesTrue if more items exist after this page
nextOffsetYesOffset to pass for the next page, or null

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed3 schema fields changed
    • changedInput schema / properties / emails / description
      Previous value: -"Required. 1-10000 addresses (<= 320 chars each); \"Name <addr>\" and \"mailto:\" forms accepted. Example: [\"jane@acme.com\",\"bob@gmial.com\"]"New value: +"Required. 1-10000 strings, 1-320 chars each, one address per element; bare \"jane@acme.com\", \"Jane <jane@acme.com>\" and \"mailto:jane@acme.com\" forms accepted. Example: [\"jane@acme.com\",\"bob@gmial.com\"]"
    • changedInput schema / properties / limit / description
      Previous value: -"Page size: items to return, integer 1-1000 (default 100)"New value: +"Optional page size: items to return, integer 1-1000 (default 100). Example: 50"
    • changedInput schema / properties / offset / description
      Previous value: -"Items to skip for paging, integer >= 0 (default 0); pass nextOffset from the previous response"New value: +"Optional zero-based number of items to skip, integer 0-1000000 (default 0); pass nextOffset from the previous response, e.g. 100"
  2. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

A4.9/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already cover read-only/idempotent/no-open-world, yet the description adds substantial non-structural behavior: no DNS/SMTP network calls, synchronous CPU-bound execution, no rate limits, sub-second throughput at the 10,000-address cap, and the crucial limitation that dns_checked is always false. It also flags duplicate non-merging and the fact that meta.summary counts all rows rather than the page.

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 labeled WHAT/WHEN/WHEN NOT/COST/RETURNS/BEHAVIOR/PARAMETERS/EXAMPLE structure is well front-loaded and scannable, and each block carries real information. It is long, with mild restatement ('never valid' and dns_checked appear in both WHEN NOT and RETURNS), so it stops just short of maximal conciseness.

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?

For a three-parameter, high-throughput batch tool with an output schema, the description supplies everything the schema and annotations cannot: verdict vocabulary, normalization semantics, paging interplay with meta.summary, and cost/latency expectations. Nothing needed to call it correctly is left unstated.

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?

Schema coverage is 100%, but the description goes well beyond it with normalization rules (Name <addr> reduction, mailto: stripping, domain lowercasing with local-part case preserved, trailing-dot removal, punycode), the fact that a comma-separated list inside one element is INVALID_SYNTAX rather than split, +tag-insensitive role detection, and disposable matching on subdomains. This is exactly the kind of input-shape detail the schema cannot express.

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 line names a specific verb (check) and enumerates the four concrete checks performed (RFC syntax/normalization, domain typo, disposable, role/free-webmail), and the WHEN NOT line names the sibling email_validate_deliverability as the differing case. An agent can distinguish this tool from every sibling without opening a 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 (fast pre-filtering of signups/lead lists before paying for deliverability) and WHEN NOT (cannot verify MX/DNS; verdict is never "valid"), plus a named paid alternative for that case. Routing is fully determined by the text.

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