Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Qiniso

Qiniso

Official
by qinisolabs
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Hybrid

validate_email

Validate an email address's syntax and domain TLD in real-time before saving or sending, ensuring proper format and real top-level domains using RFC standards.

Instructions

USE THIS to check an email address's syntax AND that its domain TLD is real, before saving or sending — instead of trusting raw input. Validates the local part and domain (RFC 5321/5322 subset) and flags made-up TLDs. Does NOT check deliverability.

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": {
      "email": "<email>"
    },
    "name": "validate_email"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
emailYesThe email address to validate.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv1.0.0

TDQS

A4.6/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations, the description transparently states it validates syntax and TLD but not deliverability. It does not mention side effects or network calls, but for a validation tool this is adequate.

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?

The description is concise and front-loaded with the action prompt. No wasted words; every sentence adds value.

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?

The description covers purpose and limitations well, but lacks information about the output format (e.g., boolean, object). Given no output schema, this is a minor gap.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100% with a basic description. The tool description adds value by explaining the validation scope (syntax and TLD), going 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 clearly states the tool's purpose: to validate an email address's syntax and check that the domain TLD is real. It distinguishes itself from sibling validation tools by focusing on email-specific checks and specifying RFC standards.

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

Usage Guidelines5/5

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

Explicitly says 'USE THIS to check... before saving or sending — instead of trusting raw input.' Also clarifies what it does NOT do (deliverability), guiding the agent on when not to use it.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools