MinuteMail

Create OAuth client

oauth.clients.create

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`name`	Yes	Client display name
`providerType`	No	Identity provider type
`redirectUris`	Yes	Allowed redirect URIs (at least one)
`providerLabel`	No	Custom provider label. Required when providerType is custom.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`name`	Yes	Client display name
`clientId`	Yes	Public OAuth client ID
`createdAt`	No	Creation timestamp (RFC 3339)
`clientSecret`	No	Plaintext secret — returned once at creation or rotation
`providerType`	No	Identity provider type
`redirectUris`	No	Allowed redirect URIs
`providerLabel`	No	Custom provider label

TDQS

A4.3/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

The annotations already indicate non-readonly, non-idempotent, non-destructive behavior. The description adds a valuable operational caveat: the plaintext clientSecret is returned only once at creation, which is exactly the kind of behavior an agent needs to know before calling.

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?

Two short sentences with no filler. The purpose and scope are front-loaded, and the high-value warning about the one-time secret follows immediately.

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?

Given full parameter descriptions, an output schema, and the crucial one-time-secret warning, an agent has everything it needs to invoke this tool correctly. No missing operational context is apparent.

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 the input schema already documents all four parameters including providerType's enum and providerLabel's custom requirement. The description adds no parameter-specific semantics beyond the response note about clientSecret.

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 uses a specific verb ('Register') and resource ('OAuth client') and clarifies its context ('for mock identity flows'). It is clearly distinct from sibling operations like delete, get, list, and rotate_secret.

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?

It gives clear context by stating this is the tool for registering OAuth clients in mock identity flows. It does not explicitly name alternatives or negative cases, but no sibling tool competes for the same create operation.

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

All MinuteMail tools Inspect

Try in Browser

RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

A3.6/5.0

Disambiguation5/5

Every tool is scoped to a specific resource and action, and the dot-separated prefixes keep domains, mailboxes, mails, attachments, identities, OAuth clients, and team entities clearly distinct. Even similar actions like archived.delete vs mailboxes.delete or attachments.add vs mails.inject are unambiguous from context.

Naming Consistency5/5

All tools follow the same resource.action pattern with lowercase dot-separated names and consistent plural resource prefixes. Multiword actions like delete_bulk and rotate_secret are consistently snake_cased, so the convention is predictable across all 40 tools.

Tool Count2/5

At 40 tools, the surface is quite large and exceeds the 25+ threshold where tool sets become heavy for an agent to navigate. The grouping is coherent, but this many discrete operations would have been easier to manage with fewer, more consolidated endpoints.

Completeness4/5

The API covers the main lifecycle operations for mailboxes, mails, attachments, archived items, domains, identities, OAuth clients, and team members, with no dead ends in core flows. Minor gaps exist, such as no domains.get, no team.invitations.get, and no mailbox update/expiry operation, but these are workable via list operations.

Resources

Need Help?