Skip to main content
Glama

Get mailbox deliverability

get_mailbox_deliverability
Read-only

Call this when the user asks why their emails land in spam or the junk folder, or before launching a campaign to confirm the sending mailbox is configured to deliver. Each mailbox reflects the last DNS check — Sliq re-checks daily and on connect, so the data is current without asking the user to re-run it.

verdict is the worst of the four record statuses: 'fail' (a record is misconfigured and may block or junk sends, so is_send_ready is False), 'warn' (advisory — delivery still works), or 'pass' (all four clean). score is a 0-100 roll-up that score_tier buckets into 'good' / 'needs_work' / 'critical'. Each checks entry carries the per-record diagnostic (what is wrong) and fix_instruction_markdown (how to fix it, null when that record passes) — relay these when the user wants to fix a failing record. A mailbox's deliverability is None when it has never been checked — tell the user to open that mailbox in Settings and run the DNS check. An empty mailboxes list means no email account is connected. { 'mailboxes': [ { 'email': str, 'provider': str, 'is_default': bool, 'deliverability': { 'domain': str, 'verdict': 'pass' | 'warn' | 'fail', 'score': int, 'score_tier': 'good' | 'needs_work' | 'critical', 'is_send_ready': bool, 'last_checked_at': str, # ISO 8601 'dns_provider': str, 'checks': [ {'record_type': 'spf' | 'dkim' | 'dmarc' | 'mx', 'status': 'pass' | 'warn' | 'fail', 'raw_record': str, 'diagnostic': str, 'fix_instruction_markdown': str | None}, ... ], }, }, ... ], }

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "get_mailbox_deliverability"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
on_behalf_ofNoA teammate's email, or an agency client's from list_agency_clients, to run this call in that account: their agents, settings, connected accounts, and credits. Omit it to act on your own account.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed1 schema field changed
    • changedInput schema / properties / on_behalf_of / description
      Previous value: -"An agency client's email, from list_agency_clients, to run this call in that client's account: their agents, settings, connected accounts, and credits. Omit it to act on your own account."New value: +"A teammate's email, or an agency client's from list_agency_clients, to run this call in that account: their agents, settings, connected accounts, and credits. Omit it to act on your own account."
  2. Changed1 schema field changed
    • addedInput schema / properties / on_behalf_of
      Added value: +{
      +  "anyOf": [
      +    {
      +      "type": "string"
      +    },
      +    {
      +      "type": "null"
      +    }
      +  ],
      +  "default": null,
      +  "description": "An agency client's email, from list_agency_clients, to run this call in that client's account: their agents, settings, connected accounts, and credits. Omit it to act on your own account."
      +}
  3. First observed

TDQS

A4.4/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Beyond readOnlyHint=true, it discloses data freshness guarantees (daily and on-connect re-checks), the meaning of `verdict` including the is_send_ready implication, the score/score_tier roll-up, and the two degenerate states: `deliverability` is None when never checked (tell the user to run the DNS check in Settings) and an empty `mailboxes` list means no account is connected. That is exactly the operational context an agent needs and cannot get from annotations.

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?

Front-loaded with a one-line summary, then usage triggers, then field semantics, then edge cases. Every sentence carries information, though the embedded <returns> block makes it longer than typical; that bulk is justified because no output schema exists.

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?

With no output schema, the description fully documents the return shape, field semantics, how to relay per-record diagnostic and fix_instruction_markdown to the user, and both null/empty edge cases. Nothing needed to call or interpret this tool 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?

One optional parameter (`on_behalf_of`) at 100% schema description coverage, so the schema already explains acting on a teammate's or agency client's account. The description never mentions it, adding no meaning beyond the schema — 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?

States a specific verb and resource: 'read the DNS deliverability verdict (SPF, DKIM, DMARC, MX) for each connected mailbox.' No sibling tool covers DNS deliverability, and the parenthetical record types make the scope unambiguous.

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 two concrete triggers: the user asks why emails land in spam/junk, or the agent is about to launch a campaign and needs to confirm send configuration. It also rules out a redundant re-check by noting Sliq re-checks daily and on connect. No explicit exclusion or named alternative, but no sibling competes for this job.

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

Try in Browser

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources