addDomainClaim a new domain and receive the DNS records to publish. Returns dns_records with the exact records to add. If the domain has an mx_conflict (existing mail provider), re-call with confirmed: true to proceed. After publishing DNS records, call verifyDomain to complete setup.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| requestBody | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| data | Yes | ||
| tool | Yes | ||
| status | Yes | ||
| statusText | No |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Discloses non-read-only nature (claiming), conflict resolution, and return of dns_records. Adds context beyond annotations about the flow, though edge cases like domain already claimed are not covered.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Three sentences, front-loaded main action, no unnecessary words. Efficient and well-structured.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Covers main claim action, conflict case with re-call, and next step (verifyDomain). With an output schema present, return values are hinted. Complete for agent use.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Description explains both domain and confirmed parameters, but the input schema already contains similar descriptions. Adds minimal new meaning beyond what the schema provides.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Clearly states the tool claims a domain and returns DNS records. Distinguishes from sibling tools like verifyDomain, which completes setup, and listDomains, which lists existing domains.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Provides explicit guidance: use for initial claim, re-call with confirmed=true if mx_conflict occurs, and follow with verifyDomain. Offers a clear workflow with alternatives.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Each tool targets a distinct resource or action: domain management (addDomain, verifyDomain), sending (sendEmail, replyToEmail), receiving (getEmail, listEmails), webhooks (createEndpoint, listWebhookDeliveries), status (getAccount, getInboxStatus), etc. There is no overlap in purpose, and descriptions clearly differentiate them.
All tools follow a consistent verb_noun pattern in snake_case, such as listDomains, createFilter, downloadEmailAttachments, and getSentEmail. The verbs (get, list, create, delete, send, reply, etc.) are used predictably, with no mixing of conventions.
29 tools is slightly on the high side but still reasonable for an email server covering domains, sending, receiving, webhooks, filters, and status. Each tool serves a specific purpose and earns its place, though some consolidation might be possible.
The tool set covers core email workflows: domain setup (add, verify, list), sending/receiving, threading, webhook lifecycle, and filtering. Minor gaps exist, such as missing deleteDomain or updateEndpoint, but the surface is largely complete for the intended domain.