Skip to main content
Glama

email_validate

Check email address validity by verifying format and DNS MX records to ensure deliverability and reduce bounce rates.

Instructions

Validate an email address (format + MX check) ($0.001)

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
emailYes

Implementation Reference

  • index.js:50-79 (handler)
    The general tool handler that executes API calls to IteraTools backend for various tools including email_validate.
    async function callTool(endpoint, params) {
      const fetch = (await import('node-fetch')).default;
      const isGet = ['GET'].includes((TOOLS.find(t => t.endpoint === endpoint) || {}).method);
      
      const url = isGet 
        ? `${BASE_URL}${endpoint}?${new URLSearchParams(params)}`
        : `${BASE_URL}${endpoint}`;
      
      const res = await fetch(url, {
        method: isGet ? 'GET' : 'POST',
        headers: {
          'Content-Type': 'application/json',
          'Authorization': `Bearer ${API_KEY}`,
        },
        body: isGet ? undefined : JSON.stringify(params),
      });
      
      const text = await res.text();
      let data;
      try { data = JSON.parse(text); } catch { data = { raw: text }; }
      
      if (!res.ok) {
        if (res.status === 402) {
          throw new Error(`Insufficient credits. Add credits at https://iteratools.com. Cost: ${TOOLS.find(t=>t.endpoint===endpoint)?.price || 'see docs'}`);
        }
        throw new Error(`API error ${res.status}: ${text.substring(0, 200)}`);
      }
      
      return data;
    }
  • index.js:38-38 (registration)
    Registration of the 'email_validate' tool in the TOOLS array.
    { name: 'email_validate', description: 'Validate an email address (format + MX check)', inputSchema: { type: 'object', properties: { email: { type: 'string' } }, required: ['email'] }, endpoint: '/email/validate', price: '$0.001' },
Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It successfully discloses cost ('$0.001') and validation methodology (MX check), but fails to describe return values, error handling, rate limits, or safety characteristics (e.g., read-only nature).

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

Conciseness5/5

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

Extremely efficient: every token earns its place. Front-loaded with the action ('Validate'), followed by scope, technical method in parentheses, and cost. Zero waste despite high information density.

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?

For a single-parameter tool without output schema, the description adequately explains the operation and cost, but should mention the return format (boolean? object?) and potential error states to be fully complete.

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 description coverage is 0% for the single 'email' parameter. The description implies the parameter is the target email address ('Validate an email address'), providing baseline semantic context, but does not explicitly document the parameter's purpose, format requirements, or constraints beyond 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 description uses a specific verb ('Validate') with clear resource ('email address') and methodology ('format + MX check'). No sibling tools handle email validation, so no explicit differentiation is needed; the scope is immediately obvious.

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?

There is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, or prerequisites for use. The cost indicator ('$0.001') provides implicit usage context (paid operation), but lacks explicit when/when-not recommendations.

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/fredpsantos33/itera-tools-mcp'

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