Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In

Emailchaser

by com.emailchaser
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

Remove one blocklist entry

remove_blocklist_entry
DestructiveIdempotent

Removes one suppression entry by ID, so campaigns can email that domain or address again. This cannot be undone: the entry and the record of when it was added are gone. A sub-workspace key cannot remove an account-wide entry it merely inherits. It removes one entry 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": {
      "id": "<id>"
    },
    "name": "remove_blocklist_entry"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
idYesThe numeric blocklist entry ID (from list_blocklist_entries)

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed1 schema field changed
    • changedInput schema / $schema
      Previous value: -"http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#"New value: +"https://json-schema.org/draft/2020-12/schema"
  2. First observed

TDQS

A4.3/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already flag destructiveHint and idempotentHint, yet the description still adds material detail: the action is irreversible, both the entry and its added-timestamp record are permanently gone, and permission scoping depends on the key's workspace level. These are exactly the facts an agent needs before committing a destructive call and are not derivable from the annotations.

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?

Four short sentences, each carrying distinct information: effect, irreversibility, permission boundary, and cardinality. The purpose is front-loaded and there is no filler or repetition.

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?

For a one-parameter destructive tool with rich annotations and no output schema, the description covers everything that matters: intent, permanence of data loss, permission limits, and per-call scope. An agent can decide and invoke correctly without opening anything else.

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 coverage is 100% and the single id parameter already documents its type and its source (list_blocklist_entries). The description only echoes "by ID" without adding format or lookup guidance, so the schema does the heavy lifting — the expected baseline.

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 ("Removes one suppression entry by ID") plus the downstream effect ("campaigns can email that domain or address again"), which makes the outcome unambiguous. It also signals singular scope with "one entry per call", implying the bulk sibling, though it never names remove_blocklist_entries explicitly.

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?

Gives clear context for when this is the right call (re-allowing email to a domain/address) and bounds the operation to a single entry per call. It adds a genuine eligibility constraint — a sub-workspace key cannot remove an inherited account-wide entry — but does not explicitly route the agent to the plural sibling for bulk work.

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

All Emailchaser toolsInspect
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