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}, ... ], }, }, ... ], }

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observed

TDQS

A4.6/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Beyond the readOnlyHint annotation, the description explains data freshness (daily/on-connect recheck), the meaning of verdict and score_tier, the worst-of-four logic, null deliverability for never-checked mailboxes, and empty-list semantics. This is rich behavioral disclosure that helps the agent interpret results correctly.

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 description is long but well-structured: a concise summary followed by a return-value breakdown. Every section contributes meaningful information, especially since there is no formal output schema. It is somewhat verbose but earns most of its length.

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 no-parameter, read-only tool, the description covers the core purpose, when to use it, freshness behavior, edge cases (null deliverability, empty mailboxes), and full return semantics including diagnostics and fix instructions. Nothing an agent needs to interpret the result correctly is missing.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The tool has zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. There are no parameter semantics to explain, and the schema is complete for an empty input object. The description does not need to add anything here.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Read the DNS deliverability verdict (SPF, DKIM, DMARC, MX) for each connected mailbox.' It is immediately clear what the tool does and is distinct from generic get_* tools, with concrete coverage of the four record types.

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 explicit usage context: '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.' It does not name specific alternative tools or provide when-not-to-use exclusions, so it falls just short of a 5.

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