NoBounce Email Validation MCP Server
Server Configuration
Describes the environment variables required to run the server.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| NOBOUNCE_API_KEY | Yes | Your NoBounce API key (e.g. nb-your-api-key-here). Get a free API key at https://nobounceapi.com/register |
Instructions
Guidance the server publishes about itself, which clients place ahead of the tool catalog so the model reads it before choosing anything.
This server publishes no instructions, or was last inspected before Glama recorded them.
Capabilities
Features and capabilities supported by this server
Protocol revision2025-11-25
| Capability | Details |
|---|---|
| tools | {} |
Tools
Functions exposed to the LLM to take actions
| Name | Description |
|---|---|
| validate_emailA | Validate a single email address for RFC 5322 syntax, DNS MX records, 5,000+ disposable email providers, role-based accounts (admin@, support@), free email providers, domain typo suggestions, and optional SMTP mailbox handshake. |
| validate_emails_bulkA | Validate up to 1,000 email addresses in a single batch call. Checks syntax, MX records, disposable domains, role accounts, free providers, and typo suggestions with automatic partial-quota handling. |
Prompts
Interactive templates invoked by user choice
| Name | Description |
|---|---|
No prompts | |
Resources
Contextual data attached and managed by the client
| Name | Description |
|---|---|
No resources | |
TDQS
Scored across 2 tools
The two tools are cleanly separated by scope: validate_email handles one address, validate_emails_bulk handles batches up to 1,000. There is no realistic scenario where an agent could confuse the two, and the naming itself signals the distinction.
Both tools use snake_case with the same validate_ verb and the same email/emails noun stem, giving a predictable pattern. The only minor deviation is the plural-plus-'bulk' qualifier on the batch variant, which is still readable and conventional.
Two tools is on the thin side even for a narrow validation service; it is essentially one operation exposed in single and bulk form. The count is defensible for the scope but leaves little surface for account/quota management.
Single and bulk validation cover the core domain (syntax, MX, disposable, role, free, typo, SMTP) well. The notable gap is the absence of any quota/credits or account-status tool, despite bulk mentioning 'partial-quota handling' — agents cannot inspect remaining quota before large batches.