testEndpointSend a sample email.received event to a webhook endpoint to verify your signature verifier. Rate limited to 4/min and 30/hr. Successful deliveries and verified-domain endpoints are exempt.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | Endpoint ID from listEndpoints or createEndpoint. |
| 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 rate limits (4/min, 30/hr) and exemption conditions beyond annotations. No contradiction with annotations; non-destructive nature is implied.
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 concise sentences front-loading the primary purpose, then adding rate limits and exemptions. No unnecessary words.
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?
Simple tool with 1 param and output schema; description covers purpose, rate limiting, and parameter source. Complete for correct invocation.
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?
Only one parameter (id) fully described in schema. Description adds no extra semantics beyond the schema's 'Endpoint ID from listEndpoints or createEndpoint.' Schema coverage 100% justifies baseline 3.
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 sends a sample email.received event to test a webhook endpoint for verifying signature verifier. Differentiates from siblings like replayWebhookDelivery by specifying the purpose.
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 context on when to use (to verify signature verifier) and mentions rate limits and exemptions. Does not explicitly exclude other tools, but the purpose is clear enough.
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.