Configure inbound email routing for a subdomain so replies land in the MisarMail unified inbox. Returns the MX record to publish.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| domain | Yes | Root domain, e.g. example.com | |
| subdomain | Yes | Inbound subdomain label, e.g. reply | |
| webhook_url | Yes | HTTPS URL to POST inbound messages to (required) |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Input schema / properties / webhook_url / descriptionPrevious value: -"Optional HTTPS URL to POST inbound messages to"New value: +"HTTPS URL to POST inbound messages to (required)"Input schema / requiredPrevious value: -[
- "domain",
- "subdomain"
-]New value: +[
+ "domain",
+ "subdomain",
+ "webhook_url"
+]Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true, openWorldHint=true and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety and repeatability profile. The description adds the useful behavioral detail that a webhook receives POSTed inbound messages and that an MX record is returned, but says nothing about auth requirements or rate limits.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two tightly written sentences with no filler; the routing purpose is front-loaded and the return value is stated second. Every clause earns its place.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
With no output schema, the description valuably states the return value (the MX record to publish), so the agent knows what to expect and how to act on it. It is nearly complete for a three-required-param configuration tool, missing only prerequisite ordering relative to add_domain/verify_domain.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so all three parameters (domain, subdomain, webhook_url) are already documented in the schema. The description echoes the subdomain/webhook concept but adds no format or constraint detail beyond the schema, making the baseline 3 appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description names a specific verb (Configure) and resource (inbound email routing for a subdomain) and states the outcome, that replies land in the MisarMail unified inbox. This clearly distinguishes it from generic siblings like add_domain or verify_domain, though it does not explicitly name those alternatives.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The route purpose ('so replies land in the MisarMail unified inbox') implies when this tool is relevant, but there is no explicit when-to-use versus add_domain/verify_domain guidance and no stated prerequisites such as the domain existing or being verified first.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.