Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In

MailGlass

by email.dygc.mail
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

await_verification

One-call verification loop: create an inbox, return its address, wait for a matching verification mail, return the structured result (extracted + actions), and optionally reclaim the inbox. Reuses the same wait path as wait_for_code (15-minute history scan + live wake-up, broadcast semantics). Params: timeoutSec (default 60, max 300), from/subject filters, fromMatch (any|envelope), optional localPart/domain/displayLabel, reclaim (default false — soft-deletes the inbox afterwards; its address enters a 7-day reuse cooldown).

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "await_verification"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
fromNoCase-insensitive substring match on the sender.
domainNoOptional receiving domain; defaults to the first configured domain.
reclaimNoSoft-delete the inbox after the call (default false). Address enters a 7-day cooldown.
subjectNoCase-insensitive substring match on the subject.
fromMatchNoany (default) matches display From or envelope sender; envelope matches only the SMTP envelope sender.
localPartNoOptional exact local part; omit for a random one.
timeoutSecNoDefault 60, max 300.
displayLabelNoOptional display label.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observed

TDQS

A4.1/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden and does well: it discloses the 15-minute history scan plus live wake-up timing, broadcast semantics, and that reclaim soft-deletes the inbox and triggers a 7-day address cooldown. It stops short of describing quota/creation side effects of the implicit inbox creation and what happens on timeout.

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 flow is front-loaded in the first sentence, and the second sentence adds the wait-path and side-effect detail. The trailing parameter recap is somewhat redundant given the fully documented schema but remains compact.

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?

For an 8-parameter composite tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the orchestration flow, timing behavior, and reclaim consequences well. The remaining gap is the return shape — "extracted + actions" is not explained anywhere since no output schema exists — and timeout failure behavior is unaddressed.

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 coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3; the description restates defaults (timeoutSec 60/300, reclaim false) and the fromMatch option that the schema already documents. It adds little new semantics beyond confirming localPart/domain/displayLabel are optional.

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 specifies a concrete multi-step verb sequence (create inbox, return address, wait for matching mail, return structured result, optionally reclaim) with a named resource domain. It explicitly contrasts with a sibling by noting it reuses the same wait path as wait_for_code, so an agent can tell it apart from create_inboxes + wait_for_code composition.

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?

"One-call verification loop" clearly signals this is the consolidated alternative to orchestrating create_inboxes, wait_for_code, and delete_inbox separately, and the wait-path reference anchors it against wait_for_code. It does not state exclusions, e.g. when to prefer the granular tools or when not to use it for non-verification mail.

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

All MailGlass toolsInspect
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