Emailchaser

Get sender email warm-up settings

get_sender_email_warmup

Read-only

Reads a mailbox's warm-up settings: whether warm-up is on, the ramp (startLimit warm-up emails on the first day, increaseBy more each sending day, up to capLimit a day), weekdays-only, timezone, today's ramp target (currentPerDay) and the account's healthScore (0-100, higher is better, the share of its warm-up emails over the last 7 full days that landed in the inbox rather than spam; null while warm-up is off or before 20 were checked). Warm-up volume is separate from the mailbox's campaign sending limits. When configured is false the mailbox has never warmed, and the values shown are the defaults that switching warm-up on would use.

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": {
      "id": "<id>"
    },
    "name": "get_sender_email_warmup"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`id`	Yes	The numeric sender email ID (from list_sender_emails)

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed1 schema field changedOct 29, 2026

changedInput schema / $schema

Previous value: -"http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#"New value: +"https://json-schema.org/draft/2020-12/schema"

First observedSep 12, 2026

TDQS

A4.2/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, but the description adds substantial behavior beyond that: the exact ramp formula (startLimit, increaseBy, capLimit), the healthScore range and how it is computed over the last 7 full days, when it is null (warm-up off or fewer than 20 checks), and what 'configured: false' means (never warmed; values are defaults). That is exactly the kind of semantic context annotations cannot carry.

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 core purpose is front-loaded before the detailed parentheticals, and every clause conveys real information about a returned field. The single long sentence with nested parentheses (especially the ramp and healthScore explanations) is dense and slightly harder to scan than a bulleted or multi-sentence layout would be.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description carries the burden of explaining return values, and it does so field by field, including the null semantics of healthScore and the meaning of unconfigured defaults. For a one-parameter read tool with closed-world, non-destructive annotations, nothing an agent needs to call it correctly is missing.

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?

There is a single parameter with 100% schema description coverage ('The numeric sender email ID (from list_sender_emails)'), so the schema already does the work. The description only refers to 'a mailbox's' settings without adding format, validation, or failure semantics for an invalid id, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Reads a mailbox's warm-up settings', then enumerates exactly which settings (ramp, weekdays-only, timezone, currentPerDay, healthScore). This makes it unambiguously a read of warm-up configuration, clearly distinct from the mutating sibling update_sender_email_warmup and from get_sender_email.

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?

Usage is implied rather than stated: an agent can infer this is the tool to inspect warm-up state for a given sender email, and the note that 'warm-up volume is separate from the mailbox's campaign sending limits' helps interpretation. However, it never says when to prefer this over get_sender_email or get_sender_reputation, nor any precondition beyond the id.

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

All Emailchaser tools Inspect

Try in Browser

One endpoint for every MCP toolRayrun runs every MCP server behind one URL and holds the credentials. Each call is decided per client, tool, and argument, then recorded.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources

Need Help?