Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Veille MCP Server

Veille MCP Server

Official
by veilleio
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Hybrid

Email Validation

intelligence_email
Read-only

Validate any email address in one call to detect disposable inboxes, role accounts, webmail, and relay services and get a 0–100 risk score.

Instructions

Email Validation. Validate any email address in a single call. Detects disposable and temporary inboxes, identifies role accounts, public webmail, relay services, and returns a 0-100 risk score. For deep deliverability verification (SMTP check, catch-all de… Credit cost: 3 credits per call.

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": {
      "query": "<query>"
    },
    "name": "intelligence_email"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
queryYesThe email address to validate (e.g. john@example.com). Automatically normalized to lowercase.
fieldsNoComma-separated list of fields to keep in the response, with dot notation for nested fields (e.g. name,location.city). Does not change the credit cost.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

A3.5/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful context beyond them: the specific signal categories returned and the fact that each call costs 3 credits, which matters for an agent deciding whether to batch or skip lookups.

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

Conciseness3/5

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

The opening is front-loaded and the capability list is efficient, but the description is visibly truncated mid-sentence, leaving a dangling clause, and the bare 'Credit cost: 3 credits per call' fragment is appended without connective structure. It also restates the title as its first two words.

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

Completeness3/5

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

For a two-parameter read-only lookup with no output schema, the definition covers purpose, signals, and cost adequately, but the truncated alternative-tool guidance leaves the agent without the escalation path the description itself promises. It also says nothing about what the response looks like despite there being no output schema.

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%, so both 'query' (including lowercase normalization) and 'fields' (dot notation, no credit impact) are fully documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter-level meaning of its own, so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Validate any email address in a single call') and enumerates concrete detection capabilities: disposable/temporary inboxes, role accounts, public webmail, relay services, and a 0-100 risk score. An agent can tell this is an email-reputation lookup, though it never names the closest sibling (intelligence_emailq) so differentiation is only partial.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

The sentence starting 'For deep deliverability verification (SMTP check, catch-all de…' clearly intends to route the agent to an alternative, but it is truncated mid-word and never names the sibling tool, so the routing instruction is unusable as written. Usage is implied by the capability list rather than explicitly bounded.

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