MailVakt

Start inbox test

start_inbox_test

Create an email-receipt test in MailVakt. Takes an optional expected sender domain; returns a test ID, unique recipient address and expiry time. The user must send a test message to that address before expiry, then use get_inbox_test to read the result. Creates a new test on each call. Does not send email or measure inbox-versus-spam placement at Gmail, Outlook or other mailbox providers.

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": "start_inbox_test"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`expected_from_domain`	No	The domain the test email will be sent from, e.g. example.com

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedOct 2, 2026

TDQS

A4.5/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations only declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=false; the description adds the crucial non-idempotency note ('Creates a new test on each call'), the expiry constraint, and the required external action before the result exists. It stops short of stating auth requirements, rate limits, or what happens if the test expires unread, but the added context is well beyond 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, front-loaded with the action and return values, followed by the workflow and then the scope exclusions. Every sentence carries distinct information with no 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?

No output schema exists, so the description supplies the return shape (test ID, unique recipient address, expiry). Combined with the follow-up step and the explicit non-goals, an agent has everything needed to call it and act on the result.

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 parameter's own description already explains it as the sending domain. The description only restates it as 'optional expected sender domain', adding no format or edge-case detail, 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Create an email-receipt test in MailVakt') and immediately scopes what the artifact is (test ID, recipient address, expiry). It is distinguishable from siblings like get_inbox_test, which it names, and from domain/DNS tools in the sibling list.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines5/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Gives an explicit workflow: the user must send a test message to the returned address before expiry, then call get_inbox_test to read the result. It also states exclusions — no email is sent and no inbox-vs-spam placement is measured — so an agent knows when this tool is the wrong choice.

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

All MailVakt 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?