ClearBounce Email Verification
REMOTE · CLEARBOUNCE.NET
Verify email addresses in real time and find business email addresses with live mailbox checks.
Available components
Last scanned (4 minutes ago)
Scores higher than 99% of remote servers
Reachable. Last reached 17 Oct 2026.
Category CRM and Sales
How this component scores in each security and reliability category. Every signal is checked automatically against the live server, and we only credit what we can confirm. How we score → Why this is hard to score →
Endpoint Security94
- The endpoint's TLS certificate is valid, in date, and uses a strong key. View diagnostics → Pass
- Authorisation is enforced on tool calls, advertised via RFC 9728 protected-resource metadata. Discovery is public, which costs nothing: no tool can be invoked without a token. View diagnostics → Pass
- HTTPS is enforced; there's no plaintext access path. View diagnostics → Pass
- The HSTS (Strict-Transport-Security) header is present. View diagnostics → Pass
- DNSSEC check failed: this domain isn't protected by DNSSEC. See how to fix → View diagnostics → Fail
- The authorisation server offers only Dynamic Client Registration (RFC 7591), which MCP 2026-07-28 deprecated in favour of Client ID Metadata Documents. View diagnostics → Partial
Transport & Reachability100
- Verified streamable-http transport via a live MCP handshake. View diagnostics → Pass
Schema Quality & AI Usability78
- AI-judged instruction clarity (excellent).Pass
- Context-footprint check failed: tool/resource definitions use about 821 tokens (~164/item across 5 items; 5 tools + 0 resources), over budget; trim descriptions and params. See how to fix → Fail
- Usage-examples check failed: none of the tools include examples. See how to fix → Fail
Stability & Change Management100
- No destabilizing schema changes in the last 30 days.Pass
Tool Coverage100
- 100% of tools have a non-trivial description (not blank, and not just the tool's name).Pass
- 100% of tool parameters carry a description.Pass
- Structured output schemas are declared (100% of tools); any adoption earns full credit.Pass
Tool Safety100
- No prompt-injection markers were found in the server instructions, tool names or descriptions we captured.Pass
- We read all 5 captured tool definition(s), and no name or description among them implies an irreversible operation.Pass
- An AI judge read all 6 captured unit(s) of tool text and found none that tries to manipulate the model reading it.Pass
Capabilities100
- Implements a supported MCP spec version (2025-11-25); the latest is 2026-07-28.Pass
Every change we have recorded for this component, newest first. Security-relevant changes are always shown. ▲ marks a change for the better, ▼ a change for the worse; unmarked changes are neutral.
- 28 Sept 26 +1
- We updated how we score, so this day's move reflects our rubric, not a change to the server See what changed → functional
- 26 Sept 26 +1
No change was recorded against any check on this day. Stability & Change Management went from 90 to 93. That category is still filling its 30-day observation window: 27 days of observed history at the previous scan, 28 at this one. The score rises as the window fills, whether or not the server changes.
- 25 Sept 26 0
- We updated how we score, so this day's move reflects our rubric, not a change to the server See what changed → functional
- 24 Sept 26 +1
No change was recorded against any check on this day. Stability & Change Management went from 83 to 87. That category is still filling its 30-day observation window: 25 days of observed history at the previous scan, 26 at this one. The score rises as the window fills, whether or not the server changes.
- 22 Sept 26 +1
No change was recorded against any check on this day. Stability & Change Management went from 77 to 80. That category is still filling its 30-day observation window: 23 days of observed history at the previous scan, 24 at this one. The score rises as the window fills, whether or not the server changes.
- 20 Sept 26 +1
No change was recorded against any check on this day. Stability & Change Management went from 70 to 73. That category is still filling its 30-day observation window: 21 days of observed history at the previous scan, 22 at this one. The score rises as the window fills, whether or not the server changes.
- 18 Sept 26 +1
No change was recorded against any check on this day. Stability & Change Management went from 63 to 67. That category is still filling its 30-day observation window: 19 days of observed history at the previous scan, 20 at this one. The score rises as the window fills, whether or not the server changes.
- 15 Sept 26 +1
No change was recorded against any check on this day. Stability & Change Management went from 53 to 57. That category is still filling its 30-day observation window: 16 days of observed history at the previous scan, 17 at this one. The score rises as the window fills, whether or not the server changes.
Diagnostic detail from the automated scan of this channel: what the scanner observed at each step, so you can see exactly where a check passed or failed. It is informational only and never changes the trust score.
Captured 17 Oct 2026 · Probed https://clearbounce.net/mcp
TLS valid
Negotiated TLS 1.3 with TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 .
| Subject | Issuer | Valid from | Valid until | Key | Signature | Serial |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| CN=clearbounce.net | CN=YR1,O=Let's Encrypt,C=US | 15 Oct 2026 | 13 Jan 2027 | RSA 4096 | SHA256-RSA | 6de4e45f249209d716e1eb7a7a8bd5d6a5b |
| SANs: clearbounce.net, docs.clearbounce.net, int.clearbounce.net, www.clearbounce.net | ||||||
| CN=YR1,O=Let's Encrypt,C=US (CA) | CN=Root YR,O=ISRG,C=US | 3 Sept 2025 | 2 Sept 2028 | RSA 2048 | SHA256-RSA | a20253f15f2691c05dc1ce13b9bcca4e |
| CN=Root YR,O=ISRG,C=US (CA) | CN=ISRG Root X1,O=Internet Security Research Group,C=US | 13 May 2026 | 2 Sept 2032 | RSA 4096 | SHA256-RSA | f24b6d17f9d9ad7cb1c9fea78782699f |
Background: What to check on a remote MCP endpoint →
DNSSEC insecure
Validation of clearbounce.net. — Not signed
| Zone | DS | Keys | Algorithms | Outcome |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| . | trust_anchor | 20326, 38696 | 8, 8 | Verified |
| net. | present | 37331 | 13 | Verified |
| clearbounce.net. | absent | Unsigned (proven) parent-signed NSEC/NSEC3 proves an unsigned delegation |
Authentication Enforced and verified
The endpoint asked for a token and published valid RFC 9728 metadata describing how to get one.
| Result | Enforced and verified |
|---|---|
| Enforced | On tool calls |
| HTTP status | 200 |
WWW-Authenticate challenge Bearer resource_metadata="https://clearbounce.net/.well-known/oauth-protected-resource/mcp"
Bearer resource_metadata="https://clearbounce.net/.well-known/oauth-protected-resource/mcp"| Header | Value |
|---|---|
| strict-transport-security | max-age=31536000; includeSubDomains |
| x-content-type-options | nosniff |
| x-frame-options | SAMEORIGIN |
Protected resource metadata
| Document | https://clearbounce.net/.well-known/oauth-protected-resource/mcp |
|---|---|
| Retrieved | Yes |
| Resource | https://clearbounce.net/mcp |
| Authorisation server | https://clearbounce.net |
Background: How OAuth 2.1 works in the 2026 MCP spec →
Transports 2 probes
| Transport | URL | Outcome | Status | Location |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| streamable-http | https://clearbounce.net/mcp | Verified | 200 | |
| http (plaintext) | http://clearbounce.net/mcp | HTTPS enforced | 301 | https://clearbounce.net/mcp |
The tools this component advertises to a client, with an estimated token cost for each. Expand a tool to see its parameters and schema. The per-tool counts are indicative and are not scored directly; the schema's total context footprint is one signal in Schema Quality & AI Usability. A tool's description is untrusted text the model reads on every call, which is what makes this list a security surface and not just an inventory: how tool poisoning works →
check_bulk_status Check Bulk Job Status ~102
Check the progress of a bulk verification job started with verify_bulk. Free. Returns status (pending, processing, completed, failed), percent progress, and — once completed — the summary counts (deliverable, undeliverable, risky, unknown, catch-all). Report the summary to the user instead of listing individual addresses; the full result file can be downloaded from the ClearBounce dashboard.
| Name | Type | Req | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| jobId | string | yes | The jobId returned by verify_bulk |
| Name | Type | Req | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| catchAllCount | number | – | – |
| deliverableCount | number | – | – |
| jobId | string | yes | – |
| processedEmails | number | – | – |
| progress | number | yes | Percent complete, 0-100 |
| resultsUrl | string | – | Dashboard page where the full result file can be downloaded |
| riskyCount | number | – | – |
| status | string | yes | pending, processing, completed or failed |
| totalEmails | number | – | – |
| undeliverableCount | number | – | – |
| unknownCount | number | – | – |
No examples provided.
check_credits Check Credit Balance ~26
Return the remaining verification credit balance for the account that owns the API key. Free.
Input schema present but exposes no named parameters.
| Name | Type | Req | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| credits | number | yes | Remaining verification credits on the account |
| notice | string | – | Present only when the balance is low or empty |
| purchaseUrl | string | – | Where the user can buy more credits |
| success | boolean | – | – |
No examples provided.
find_email Find Business Email Address ~142
Find a person's business email address from their full name and company domain. Returns candidate addresses with confidence scores, based on published sources and common company address patterns. Finding is free, but candidates are pattern-based guesses until verified. After showing the candidates, tell the user that confirming deliverability costs 1 credit per candidate checked, and ask before verifying. With approval, call verify_email on candidates one at a time starting from the highest confidence, and stop at the first deliverable result.
| Name | Type | Req | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| domain | string | yes | Company domain, e.g. "northwindtraders.com" |
| name | string | yes | Full name of the person, e.g. "Jane Porter" |
| Name | Type | Req | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| best_match | string|null | – | Highest-confidence candidate address |
| candidates | array | yes | Candidate addresses, highest confidence first |
| confidence | number|null | – | Confidence of the best match, 0-100 |
| detected_company_pattern | string|null | – | Address pattern used at this company, when known |
| note | string | – | Guidance on verification cost and how to proceed |
| seen_at_company | array | – | Addresses already published at this domain |
| status | string | yes | found_published when the address came from a published source, otherwise pattern_guesses |
| total_candidates | number | yes | – |
No examples provided.
verify_bulk Verify Email List (Bulk) ~141
Verify a list of email addresses (2 to 10,000) as one bulk job using the full ClearBounce bulk pipeline — per-domain caching and greylist retries give better accuracy than verifying one by one. Costs 1 credit per unique address; duplicates are removed for free. Returns a jobId immediately (the job runs in the background, roughly 1-10 minutes depending on size). Use check_bulk_status with the jobId to get progress and the final summary. Before starting a large list, confirm with the user that spending that many credits is intended.
| Name | Type | Req | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| emails | array | yes | The email addresses to verify (2 to 10,000 items) |
| Name | Type | Req | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| duplicatesRemoved | number | – | – |
| estimatedSeconds | number | – | Rough time until the job completes |
| jobId | string | yes | Use this with check_bulk_status |
| note | string | – | – |
| uniqueEmails | number | yes | Addresses queued after duplicate removal — credits charged for these |
No examples provided.
verify_email Verify Email Address ~96
Verify a single email address in real time with a live mailbox check. Returns status (deliverable, undeliverable, risky, unknown), a sub-status reason, a 0-100 quality score, and detailed checks (syntax, MX records, disposable, role-based, catch-all, typo detection). Costs 1 credit per call.
| Name | Type | Req | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| string | yes | The email address to verify, e.g. jane@example.com |
| Name | Type | Req | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| checks | object | – | Detailed checks: syntax, MX, SMTP, disposable, role, catch-all, typo, risk |
| creditsRemaining | number | – | Credits left on the account after this check |
| string | yes | The address that was checked | |
| isDeliverable | boolean | yes | – |
| notice | string | – | Present only when the balance is low or empty: tells the user where to buy more credits |
| score | number | yes | Quality score from 0 to 100 |
| status | string | yes | deliverable, undeliverable, risky or unknown |
| subStatus | string | – | Reason code behind the status |
No examples provided.
How do I install the ClearBounce Email Verification MCP server?
ClearBounce Email Verification is a hosted endpoint at https://clearbounce.net/mcp, so there is nothing to install locally. Ready-made configuration for Claude, Cursor, VS Code, Codex and 5 more is on this page, copied from each client's own documentation.
remote · clearbounce.net
claude mcp add --transport http net-clearbounce-email-verification 'https://clearbounce.net/mcp'
What is the ClearBounce Email Verification MCP server?
ClearBounce Email Verification is an MCP server listed in the public MCP registry as net.clearbounce/email-verification. Verify email addresses in real time and find business email addresses with live mailbox checks. This page covers its hosted endpoint (https://clearbounce.net/mcp).
Is the ClearBounce Email Verification MCP server safe to use?
ClearBounce Email Verification scores 94 out of 100 on VerifyMCP. That is a record of what we were able to check automatically, not an endorsement. The category breakdown on this page shows every signal behind the number, including the ones we could not confirm.
What tools does the ClearBounce Email Verification MCP server expose?
ClearBounce Email Verification exposes 5 tools: verify_email, find_email, verify_bulk, check_bulk_status, check_credits. Their descriptions and schemas cost roughly 507 tokens of context every time the server is loaded.
Does the ClearBounce Email Verification MCP server require authentication?
Yes. ClearBounce Email Verification asked us for credentials when we connected, so you will need to authorise it in your MCP client before it can do anything.
Is the ClearBounce Email Verification MCP server still maintained?
ClearBounce Email Verification is still listed as active in the MCP registry. We last reached this channel on 17 October 2026. Those dates come from our own scans of the registry and the channel itself, not from anything the publisher announced.