Check remaining Mailveri verification credits to monitor available email verifications and know when to top up.
Check your current verification credit balance on Mailveri.
Returns the number of remaining credits available for verification.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It discloses that this is a non-mutating query returning remaining credits, which is helpful, but nothing about auth requirements, rate limits, or whether the balance is global or account-scoped. It is a read-only query by implication but this is never stated.
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?
Two short sentences, front-loaded with the purpose and followed by what is returned. Every sentence earns its place with no redundancy.
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?
Given zero parameters, no annotations, and the existence of an output schema (which presumably documents the return value), the description is nearly complete. It could add when-to-use context or note that the balance is needed before batch verification, but it covers what the tool does and what it returns.
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?
Zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. There are no parameters to explain and the description correctly reflects that no inputs are required.
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 ('Check') and resource ('verification credit balance on Mailveri'), and the second sentence clarifies exactly what is returned. An agent can tell this apart from the sibling tools, all of which perform verification or batch operations rather than account queries.
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?
The description implies usage (checking remaining credits before verifying) but offers no explicit when-to-use guidance or alternatives. No context is given about when an agent should call this versus proceeding with verification.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.