Skip to main content
Glama

Compare email hosting for a domain

compare_email_hosting
Read-onlyIdempotent

Custom-domain email providers ranked by two-year cost for a number of mailboxes: free forwarding (Cloudflare, ImprovMX), cheap mailboxes (Purelymail, Zoho, Migadu, iCloud+, Namecheap, Hostinger), office suites (Google Workspace, Microsoft 365, Zoho Workplace) and encrypted options (Proton). Includes intro-price traps and per-user vs flat pricing. Prices are curated from each provider’s pricing page with a date.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
needNoforward = forward to an existing inbox; mailbox = a real inbox (default); suite = mail + calendar + docs; private = end-to-end encrypted.
mailboxesNoHow many mailboxes/people. Default 1.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Added

TDQS

A4.4/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnly and non-destructive behavior. The description adds valuable context: it includes intro-price traps, per-user vs flat pricing, and price provenance with a date. It does not specify freshness/update policy, but the added context goes 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?

Two dense sentences front-load the core purpose and scope, then add caveats and provenance. No wasted words; examples improve clarity without bloating the text.

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?

For an informational tool with 2 optional parameters and no required inputs, the description is nearly complete: it states the ranking basis, included pricing nuances, and data provenance. It does not describe the exact output format, but 'ranked by two-year cost' implies the returned structure sufficiently.

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?

Schema coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds meaning by mapping provider categories to the `need` enum (forward, mailbox, suite, private) and clarifying that cost depends on mailbox count via per-user vs flat pricing.

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?

Description clearly states it ranks custom-domain email providers by two-year cost, naming concrete provider categories (free forwarding, cheap mailboxes, office suites, encrypted). This strongly differentiates it from sibling tools like compare_tld_prices, which focus on domain pricing rather than email hosting.

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 scope is clear: use this when comparing email hosting providers for a custom domain. It does not explicitly name alternative tools or conditions for when not to use it, so it stops short of a 5, but the context is unambiguous.

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