Mailveri MCP Server

Official

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

mailveri_verify_batch

Submits a list of email addresses for bulk deliverability verification, queues the batch for asynchronous checking, and returns a job ID for status tracking.

Instructions

Submit a list of emails for bulk verification (minimum 2 unique emails).

The list is queued on MailVeri's backend for asynchronous distributed verification. Returns a job ID that can be tracked with mailveri_get_batch_status.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "emails": "<emails>"
    },
    "name": "mailveri_verify_batch"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`emails`	Yes
`filename`	No		batch.csv

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`result`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.0.0Sep 11, 2026

TDQS

A4/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real value beyond that by disclosing the asynchronous, backend-queued execution model and the returned job ID that must be polled. It does not mention quota consumption, batch size ceilings, or what happens if submission is repeated.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the action and its constraint, then the async behavior, then the follow-up tool. Nothing is redundant and no sentence could be dropped without losing information.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

An output schema exists, so the description needn't enumerate return fields, and it still clarifies that the return is a job ID. For a two-parameter async submission tool this covers the core needs, with only the filename parameter and any batch-size limits left unaddressed.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description must carry all parameter meaning: it gives the emails array a minimum-count and uniqueness constraint, which is genuinely useful. The filename parameter is never mentioned, so half the parameters remain opaque and must be guessed from the name alone.

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?

The description names a specific verb and resource ("Submit a list of emails for bulk verification") and constrains the input (minimum 2 unique emails), so the agent knows exactly what the tool does. It never explicitly contrasts with the single-address sibling mailveri_verify_email, leaving the bulk-vs-single routing to inference from the word "bulk."

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

It supplies a concrete precondition (at least 2 unique emails) and names the follow-up tool mailveri_get_batch_status for tracking, which effectively describes the usage flow. It stops short of stating when to prefer this over mailveri_verify_email or what to do with duplicate/near-duplicate inputs.

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

Deploy Server