Handsome Hosting

Mail status

mail_status

Read-only

Mail through the platform gate for an app that sends its own mail: tier (0 = the owner only, 1 = any recipient), hourly and daily limits, whether sending is suspended, and how much went out in the last hour and day. A static site answers no-mailer: its forms use the form relay. A server with hosted mailboxes also lists them (address, and whether a password is set); passwords are set by the person on the mail page of the service and by no tool.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "serviceId": "<serviceId>"
    },
    "name": "mail_status"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`serviceId`	Yes	the id of a service on this account

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`ok`	Yes
`data`	No
`error`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed1 schema field changedOct 26, 2026

changedInput schema / properties / serviceId / description

Previous value: -"the service id from list_services"New value: +"the id of a service on this account"

First observedOct 23, 2026

TDQS

A3.6/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the description's added value is elsewhere: it explains the no-mailer outcome for static sites, that hosted mailboxes are listed with whether a password is set, and explicitly that passwords cannot be set by any tool. That tool-boundary disclosure is genuinely useful and goes beyond the annotation.

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

Conciseness3/5

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

Content is informative but sprawling: multiple clauses and parentheticals before any clear purpose statement, and return-value detail that duplicates the output schema. It is dense rather than front-loaded.

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?

An output schema exists, yet the description still covers the notable edge cases (no-mailer, hosted mailbox listing, password immutability), so an agent knows what it will and will not get. Little needed is missing for a one-parameter read tool.

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?

Only one parameter (serviceId) with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema fully carries parameter meaning. The description adds nothing about serviceId semantics, which is acceptable at this coverage level but not additive.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description establishes that this reports mail-sending state for an app/service: tier definition, hourly and daily limits, suspension flag, and recent volume. It is distinguishable from mutation siblings like request_mail_tier or form_mail, but it never states the verb+resource plainly ('status of...') and instead describes return contents.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

Usage is implied (a read of mail state) and the no-mailer/hosted-mailbox cases hint at when the result shape differs, but it never states when to call this versus alternatives such as form_mail, request_mail_tier, or action_status.

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

All Handsome Hosting tools Inspect

Try in Browser

Claude Code, inside the Godot 4 editorFlockbay puts an AI agent in the real Godot 4 editor: it writes GDScript, runs your game and fixes what breaks. Free, or bring your own Claude Code or Codex.flockbay.comAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources

Need Help?