Validate email addresses by checking deliverability, detecting disposable domains, identifying role-based addresses, and verifying MX records.
Validate an email address — check deliverability, detect disposable domains, identify role-based addresses, verify MX records.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.1.61Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does disclose what the tool actually does under the hood (deliverability probing, disposable-domain detection, role-account detection, MX verification), which is useful behavior context, but says nothing about whether it performs an SMTP handshake, how authoritative deliverability results are, or any rate/permission constraints.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
A single front-loaded sentence with the verb first and the capability list after; every clause adds information and nothing is repeated.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
With one parameter, no annotations, and no output schema, the description covers the surface scope of the result set but omits tool differentiation and any hint of what the response contains. Minimum viable, not complete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0% for the single required 'email' parameter. The description implicitly conveys the expected input type, but adds no format, normalization, or multi-address semantics beyond what the parameter name already suggests.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
States a specific verb and resource ('Validate an email address') and enumerates the concrete checks performed (deliverability, disposable domains, role-based addresses, MX records). However, it never distinguishes itself from the very similar siblings netintel_email_verify, netintel_email_auth, and netintel_email_report, leaving an agent to guess which email tool to pick.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
There is no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no named alternative. With three near-identical email siblings in the list, the absence of any routing guidance is a real gap.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.