Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In

Emailchaser

by com.emailchaser
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

Update blocklist entry

update_blocklist_entry
Idempotent

Changes one suppression entry's blocked value, its scope, or both; provide at least one. A value containing @ is stored as an email address, otherwise as a domain, so an entry can be converted between the two. Moving an entry to or from the account-wide list ("global") requires the main workspace's key and moves the entry onto the main workspace.

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": "update_blocklist_entry"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
idYesThe numeric blocklist entry ID (from list_blocklist_entries)
scopeNo"workspace" blocks for this workspace only; "global" blocks for every workspace on the account
valueNoThe new domain or email address to block

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

A3.8/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly=false, idempotent=true, destructive=false). The description adds real behavioral context beyond them: the @-based reinterpretation of the stored value, the credential requirement for global scope, and the side effect of relocating the entry onto the main workspace when scope changes. It does not say what happens if the new value collides with an existing entry.

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 mutating action and the field options are front-loaded, and the value-format rule and global-scope caveat follow logically. The semicolon-chained phrasing is dense but each clause carries distinct information; no sentence is filler.

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 three-parameter update tool with no output schema, the description covers the mutation contract, the value-type inference, the precondition for calling, and the credential/side-effect implications of changing scope. An agent has enough information to invoke it correctly without further inference.

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%, so all three parameters are already documented in the schema, which establishes the baseline of 3. The description adds the useful detail that a value containing @ becomes an email and otherwise a domain, but it does not elaborate on defaulting behavior for omitted parameters beyond the shared "at least one" rule.

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 (changes) and resource (one suppression entry), plus the two mutable fields (blocked value, scope). It clearly scopes to a single entry, implicitly distinguishing it from bulk siblings like add_blocklist_entries and remove_blocklist_entries, but never names those siblings to make the routing explicit.

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?

"Provide at least one" gives a concrete precondition for calling the tool, and the global-scope sentence explains when the operation requires extra credentials. However, there is no explicit guidance on when to use this versus add_blocklist_entries or remove_blocklist_entry, so selection between siblings is only implied.

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