Skip to main content
Glama

MailX Email Deliverability

by com.themailx

SMTP Check

smtp_check
Idempotent

Test an SMTP server connection by attempting to connect and authenticate. If from_email and to_email are provided, the tool may attempt to send a test email. Only provide these fields if you are authorized to send from the account and intentionally want to test full sending capability.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
hostYesThe SMTP server hostname, e.g. smtp.gmail.com
portYesThe SMTP port number, e.g. 587 for TLS, 465 for SSL, 25 for unencrypted
passwordYesThe SMTP password or app-specific password
to_emailNoOptional recipient email address for sending a test email
usernameYesThe SMTP username for authentication
encryptionYesThe encryption protocol: ssl, tls, or none
from_emailNoOptional sender email address for sending a test email

TDQS

A4.4/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true), the description warns about the potential side-effect of sending an email and requires intentional authorization. It also uses 'may attempt' to indicate conditional behavior, which is transparent about the tool's side effects.

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?

The description is only two sentences, with the primary purpose front-loaded. The second sentence provides necessary caution about the optional email-sending feature without being verbose. Every word adds value.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the tool's complexity (7 params, no output schema), the description covers the essential action and the key side-effect. It lacks details on return values or failure modes, but the annotations and schema provide enough context. The warning about authorization is especially important for a tool that can send emails.

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 input schema already describes all 7 parameters (100% coverage), but the description adds the crucial relationship that from_email and to_email together trigger a test email, and warns about authorization. This goes beyond the schema's individual parameter descriptions, adding semantic value.

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 clearly states the verb 'Test' and the resource 'SMTP server connection', specifying both connection and authentication. It distinguishes from siblings like imap_check and smtp_finder by focusing on SMTP connection testing, and the optional email-sending behavior is explicitly described.

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?

The description provides clear context on how to use the tool, especially the condition for sending a test email and the authorization warning. It does not explicitly name alternative tools, but the purpose is so specific that the when-to-use is implied. It gives practical guidance for the optional fields.

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

All MailX Email Deliverability toolsInspect
Try in Browser
RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

A3.7/5.0
Disambiguation4/5

Each tool has a specific purpose, but dns_lookup overlaps with cname/mx/ptr/txt lookups since it returns all record types. The 'check' tools validate records while 'lookup' tools merely retrieve them, which helps differentiate, but an agent could still confuse e.g., txt_lookup with dkim_check.

Naming Consistency3/5

Naming follows a noun_action pattern (e.g., bimi_check, mx_lookup) but uses inconsistent actions: check, lookup, finder, and generate. 'imap_finder' and 'smtp_finder' break the noun_verb pattern, and there is no uniform verb choice.

Tool Count4/5

With 16 tools, the count is at the upper edge of reasonable for an email deliverability domain. The individual DNS checks and server tests are justified, but some consolidation (e.g., a single lookup tool with record type parameter) could reduce redundancy.

Completeness4/5

Covers critical authentication checks (SPF, DKIM, DMARC, BIMI), blacklist checks, DNS lookups, and SMTP/IMAP connection tests. Missing DKIM generation and deeper reputation tools, but core deliverability verification is well-covered.

Resources