createEndpointCreate a webhook endpoint to receive email.received events. If an endpoint with the same URL already exists but is deactivated, it is reactivated. After creating, call testEndpoint to confirm your signature verifier accepts the payload.
| 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?
Beyond annotations, the description reveals key behaviors: reactivation of deactivated endpoints with the same URL and the need for post-creation testing. No contradictions with annotations.
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?
Two sentences with clear, front-loaded information. Every sentence adds value (purpose, reactivation, follow-up step). No fluff.
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?
The description covers main purpose and a key behavior, but omits any mention of permissions, error handling, or return values. With an output schema present, return values are less critical, but completeness is still moderate.
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?
Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description only mentions URL behavior briefly, leaving other parameters (rules, enabled, domain_id) unexplained. The schema provides descriptions, but the tool description should compensate more.
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?
The description clearly states the tool creates a webhook endpoint for email.received events, and distinguishes itself from siblings like testEndpoint and deleteEndpoint by mentioning reactivation and post-creation testing.
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?
The description provides a follow-up step (call testEndpoint) but lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like listEndpoints or deleteEndpoint.
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.