Skip to main content
Glama

secureIT Sicherheits-Checks

Zustellbarkeits-Check starten

mailcheck_start

Erzeugt eine Einmal-Testadresse. Der Nutzer sendet eine beliebige Mail von dem zu prüfenden Postfach dorthin; danach ruft man mailcheck_ergebnis mit der zurückgegebenen Kennung auf.

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": "mailcheck_start"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observed

TDQS

A4.6/5.0
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 disclose the key behavioral trait: this tool only generates an address and returns an identifier, while the actual test depends on an out-of-band user action, and the result is retrieved via a separate tool. It omits the lifetime/expiry of the one-time address and any permission or rate-limit context, so it falls short of fully transparent.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with what is produced and followed by the required user action and the next tool call. Every clause earns its place.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description must carry the return contract; it does so at the level needed by saying an identifier is returned and how it is consumed. What is missing is only peripheral detail such as the format/lifetime of the Kennung or error behavior.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The tool takes no parameters, so the baseline is 4; there is nothing for the description to disambiguate. It does add that an identifier is returned, but that is a return-value rather than a parameter concern.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Erzeugt eine Einmal-Testadresse') and the title anchors it as the start of a Zustellbarkeits-Check. It also positions itself against the sibling mailcheck_ergebnis, so an agent can distinguish the two without opening either schema.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines5/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Gives the exact condition of use (the user must send any mail from the mailbox being tested to the generated address) and names the follow-up tool and its input ('danach ruft man mailcheck_ergebnis mit der zurückgegebenen Kennung auf'). The sequencing is explicit rather than inferred.

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.

Resources