check_email_spam_score
Analyze email subject/body for spam trigger words
Input Schema
TableJSON Schema
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| body | Yes | ||
| subject | Yes |
Mailcannon
TDQS
C2.9/5.0
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description lacks behavioral details such as whether this is a read-only operation, what the output looks like, or any side effects. With no annotations, this gap is significant.
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?
The description is extremely concise and front-loaded. However, it could benefit from additional context without adding much length.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool is relatively simple but lacks important details: what the output is (e.g., a score, list of triggers), whether it modifies anything, and usage context. With no annotations or output schema, the description is insufficient for an agent to confidently use.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description mentions subject and body but provides no additional context such as expected formats, maximum lengths, or examples. Since schema coverage is 0%, the description should fill the gap but does not sufficiently.
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?
The description clearly states the tool's function: to analyze email subject and body for spam trigger words. It implicitly distinguishes from sibling tools like check_domain_deliverability and check_step_spam_score, which likely operate at different levels.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no usage context, such as when to prefer this over check_step_spam_score or check_domain_deliverability. There is no indication of prerequisites or limitations.
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.
TDQS
B3.3/5.0
Disambiguation5/5
Each tool targets a distinct action and resource. Campaign lifecycle steps (create, update, delete, schedule, pause, resume) are clearly separate from contact management (add, remove, update tags) and provider/domain operations. No two tools have overlapping purposes.
Naming Consistency5/5
All tools follow a consistent verb_noun pattern with underscores (e.g., add_contact, check_domain_deliverability, delete_campaign_step). Mixing of singular/plural nouns (list_campaigns vs list_tags) is intentional and does not break consistency.
Tool Count4/5
34 tools is high but justified for a full-featured email campaign server covering campaigns, contacts, providers, scheduling, deliverability, and task management. A few tools like check_email_spam_score and check_step_spam_score could be merged, but overall the count is reasonable.
Completeness5/5
The tool surface covers the complete CRM lifecycle: campaign CRUD, step management, contact CRUD with tags, provider setup, scheduling, deliverability checks, and spam analysis. Only minor gaps like per-campaign analytics or import/export exist, but core workflows are fully covered.