Unitpost

Email domains · update

email_domains_update

Destructive

Change a domain's tracking, TLS or tracking-subdomain settings, or turn receiving (inbound mail) on or off with capabilities.receiving. Receiving takes every address at the domain; a domain that can't have it yet is a 409. Receiving needs the domain verified or degraded. receiving.checks.other_mx_found true means the name already gets mail elsewhere, and publishing receiving.record moves it here.

Scope: domains:write.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "id": "<id>",
      "body": "<body>"
    },
    "name": "email_domains_update"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`id`	Yes	Domain id (`dom_…`).
`body`	Yes	Any of `open_tracking`, `click_tracking`, `tls`, `tracking_subdomain`, and `capabilities: { receiving: "enabled" \| "disabled" }` to turn receiving on or off.

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`data`	No
`hint`	No
`status`	No
`warning`	No
`request_id`	No
`retry_after_seconds`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedNov 2, 2026

TDQS

A3.9/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations declare the mutation profile (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=true, non-idempotent), and the description adds genuine value on top: 'Receiving takes every address at the domain', the 409 eligibility failure, the verified/degraded prerequisite, and the `domains:write` scope. The one material gap is whether the body is a full replace or a partial merge, which matters a lot for a destructive-flagged update.

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-loads the mutation scope in the first clause, then layers prerequisites and the MX caveat in short, ordered sentences with no filler. It is dense with backticked identifiers, which costs a little readability, but every sentence carries information.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need no explanation, and the description covers permissions, failure codes, eligibility and DNS side effects. The remaining hole is update semantics (replace vs merge) for a tool flagged destructive and non-idempotent.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already names `id` and the body fields, and the description mostly restates that list. It does add interpretive depth for `capabilities.receiving` and the `receiving.checks.other_mx_found` signal, but adds nothing about individual field formats or value constraints, so baseline 3 applies.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

Opens with a specific verb and resource plus the exact setting groups it mutates ('tracking, TLS or tracking-subdomain settings') and the receiving toggle, which clearly separates it from email_domains_verify/diagnose/create. It never names a sibling outright, so differentiation comes from field enumeration rather than explicit routing.

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 real prerequisites for the receiving path: the domain must be `verified` or `degraded`, otherwise the call returns 409, and it explains the `other_mx_found` conflict case and that publishing `receiving.record` repoints mail. It stops short of stating when to prefer email_domains_verify or email_domains_diagnose first, so the guidance is contextual rather than comparative.

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

All Unitpost 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?