Skip to main content
Glama
richelo

isitdisposable-mcp

by richelo

Check domain for disposable

check_domain
Read-only

Check whether a bare domain belongs to a disposable email service. Get a true/false verdict plus an action (allow, warn, block) to prevent signups from temporary inboxes.

Instructions

Checks a single bare domain (no local part, for example when only a company's domain is known and not a specific address) to see whether it is disposable. A disposable address is a throwaway or temporary inbox (for example from a burner mail service) that someone uses to receive a single signup message and evade normal registration requirements, rather than a real, ongoing mailbox. In the response, disposable is the core true or false verdict. action is the recommended handling: allow, warn, or block, based on the caller's own account policy. Extra opt in signals may also be present: mx_valid (whether the domain's mail servers accept mail at all), relay (a forwarding or catch all style address rather than a dedicated inbox), public_domain (a well known free provider such as Gmail or Outlook), and did_you_mean (a likely intended domain when the one given looks like a typo). This tool always fails open: if a network problem, timeout, rate limit, or server error prevents a real check, the call still succeeds and returns checked false with action allow, plus a note explaining the check could not be completed. Treat that outcome as inconclusive, never as evidence the address is safe.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
domainYesA bare domain with no local part and no @ sign, for example example.com.
Behavior5/5

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

Beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint, openWorldHint), the description details the fail-open behavior, the meaning of response fields (disposable, action, check flags), and optional signals (mx_valid, relay, etc.). It also clarifies that a failed check returns checked:false with action:allow and a note, which is critical behavioral context not in annotations.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is lengthy but each sentence provides necessary context for a nuanced tool. It is well structured with clear concepts and edge-case disclosures (fail-open, opt-in signals). Slightly verbose but justified; no wasted words.

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

Completeness5/5

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

Without an output schema, the description carries the full burden of explaining return values and behavior. It thoroughly covers the core verdict, action handling, optional fields, and failure semantics. Complete for a single-parameter tool.

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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, and the schema already explains that domain should be a bare domain without @ sign. The description reiterates this and adds a usage example, but does not add new syntax or format details beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 function with a specific verb and resource: 'Checks a single bare domain... to see whether it is disposable.' It also distinguishes from sibling tools by emphasizing 'single' and 'bare domain (no local part)', which separates it from check_email and check_batch.

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?

The description gives usage context: 'for example when only a company's domain is known and not a specific address.' It implies use cases but does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions. Clear enough for an agent to select it over the email/batch variants.

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

Install Server

Other Tools

Latest Blog Posts

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/richelo/isitdisposable-mcp'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server