Skip to main content
Glama

extract_verification_link

Extract verification links from email messages to enable automated account activation and email confirmation processes.

Instructions

Extract the most likely verification link from an email.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
message_textNo
inbox_idNo
message_idNo
preferred_domainsNo

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Implementation Reference

  • The 'run' function in 'extract_verification_link.py' serves as the primary handler for the 'extract_verification_link' MCP tool, which resolves the email message text and identifies potential verification URLs.
    async def run(
        api: ApiClient,
        message_text: str | None = None,
        inbox_id: str | None = None,
        message_id: str | None = None,
        preferred_domains: list[str] | None = None,
    ) -> dict[str, Any]:
        resolved_text, error, _ = await resolve_message_text(
            api=api,
            message_text=message_text,
            inbox_id=inbox_id,
            message_id=message_id,
        )
        if error:
            return error
        if not resolved_text:
            return tool_error("empty_message", 422, "Message body is empty")
    
        candidates = extract_verification_link_candidates(
            text=resolved_text,
            preferred_domains=preferred_domains,
        )
    
        return {
            "verification_link": candidates[0] if candidates else None,
            "candidates": candidates,
        }
Behavior3/5

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. The phrase 'most likely' correctly signals probabilistic/heuristic behavior rather than deterministic extraction. However, it fails to disclose error handling (what happens if no link exists?), side effects, or return value structure.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness3/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The single sentence is efficient with no redundancy, but for a tool with four undocumented optional parameters and complex input logic, it is inappropriately brief and front-loaded with only the basic purpose.

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 four optional parameters with zero schema documentation and no annotations, the description is incomplete. It does not clarify valid parameter combinations (e.g., whether to provide raw text or inbox/message IDs) or workflow integration, though the existence of an output schema excuses it from detailing return values.

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

Parameters1/5

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

Schema has 0% description coverage and the description completely fails to compensate. It does not explain the four parameters (message_text, inbox_id, message_id, preferred_domains), their relationships (mutually exclusive vs. complementary), or how to specify the email source.

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?

States a specific action (extract) and target (verification link from email). However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling extract_otp_code, though the distinction is clear from the tool name.

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?

Provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus siblings (e.g., when to use this instead of extract_otp_code), nor does it mention prerequisites such as needing to retrieve an email first using get_latest_email or wait_for_verification_email.

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/francofuji/un-correo-temporal'

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