Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In

MailGlass

by email.dygc.mail
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

create_inboxes

Create one or more temporary inboxes (subject to the plan inbox quota; 10 per call). Returns the created InboxDto objects; per-item failures (e.g. taken addresses) are listed in errors. The token-bound project is used; an optional projectId is accepted but must match it (mismatch is an explicit error). B1 task inboxes: pass taskTtlSec (+ expectFrom and/or expectSubject, optional completeOnMatch) with count=1 to declare an ephemeral task — the inbox auto-reclaims at expiry (expired) and, with completeOnMatch, the first matching mail flips it to completed with matchedMessageId; query via list_inboxes taskStatus filter.

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": "create_inboxes"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
countNoHow many inboxes to create (default 1). localPart only applies when count is 1.
domainNoReceiving domain; defaults to the first configured domain.
localPartNoExact local part for a single inbox; omit to auto-generate a random one.
projectIdNoOptional: must equal the token-bound project. Omit to use the token-bound project (MCP tokens are project-scoped, so no projectId is required).
expectFromNoB1: case-insensitive substring matched against the display/envelope sender.
taskTtlSecNoB1: declare a task inbox with this TTL (60s..30d). Requires count=1. expectFrom/expectSubject are optional — a bare TTL box is a pure self-destructing inbox (never completes, reclaimed at expiry).
displayLabelNoOptional display label for the inbox(es).
expectationsNoB3-4: multiple expectations; the task completes only when all match. Mutually exclusive with expectFrom/expectSubject.
expectSubjectNoB1: case-insensitive substring matched against the subject.
completeOnMatchNoB1: mark the task completed on the first matching mail (default false). Ignored when expectations is used (all must match).

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 full burden and does it well: it discloses the plan quota cap, that return values are InboxDto objects, that per-item failures surface in `errors`, and that projectId must match the token-bound project or error explicitly. It also explains lifecycle behavior (auto-reclaim at expiry, completeOnMatch flipping to completed with matchedMessageId). It stops short of stating default inbox lifetime when no TTL is given.

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?

Front-loads the core purpose and return contract before the B1 task recipe, and every clause carries information. It is dense to the point of being hard to scan in one pass, and internal tags like "B1" and "B3-4" are opaque without outside context.

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 a 10-parameter tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers return shape, failure handling, quota, project scoping, and the task-inbox lifecycle. The main residual gap is default expiry/behavior of ordinary (non-TTL) inboxes.

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 the baseline is 3; the schema already documents count, taskTtlSec, expectations mutual exclusivity, and the projectId constraint. The description adds some cross-parameter workflow meaning (taskTtlSec requires count=1; expectations vs completeOnMatch interaction) but mostly restates schema-level facts in prose.

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?

Opens with a specific verb+resource ("Create one or more temporary inboxes") and immediately bounds it with the quota rule (10 per call). It also distinguishes the creation role from siblings by pointing at list_inboxes for querying task state, so an agent can separate it from list/delete tools without reading other schemas.

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?

Gives concrete when-to-use guidance for the non-obvious mode: "B1 task inboxes: pass taskTtlSec ... with count=1 to declare an ephemeral task" and routes status checks to list_inboxes' taskStatus filter. It lacks explicit when-not-to-use or cleanup guidance (e.g., delete_inbox), so it falls short of full alternative routing.

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