Skip to main content
Glama

MisarMail MCP Server

by io.github.Misar-AI
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

create_landing_page

Create a hosted landing page with a single hero block (headline, subheadline, CTA). Returns the public URL. The real API stores pages as a page-builder block array with no dedicated headline/CTA fields, so this tool translates your inputs into one 'hero' block — for multi-block pages or a real CTA link, use the landing page editor in the MisarMail dashboard.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
nameYesPage title
slugNoURL slug (auto-generated from name when omitted)
cta_textNoCall-to-action button text
headlineYesHeadline shown to visitors
subheadlineNoSupporting line under the headline

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed3 schema fields changed
    • changedInput schema / properties / name / description
      Previous value: -"Internal page name"New value: +"Page title"
    • changedInput schema / properties / slug / description
      Previous value: -"URL slug (auto-generated when omitted)"New value: +"URL slug (auto-generated from name when omitted)"
    • removedInput schema / properties / tags
      Removed value: -{
-  "description": "Tags applied to contacts who sign up here",
-  "items": {
-    "type": "string"
-  },
-  "type": "array"
-}
  2. First observed

TDQS

A4.4/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnly=false, idempotent=false, openWorld=true, destructive=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real value beyond that: it discloses the return value (public URL) and the underlying data-model quirk (inputs are translated into one 'hero' block because the API has no headline/CTA fields). What it does not cover is auth/permission requirements or side effects on existing pages, so this is good but not complete behavioral disclosure.

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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with the action, then the return value, then the caveat and alternative. No filler, though the final sentence is long and packs two distinct ideas (block-array translation and the editor alternative) that could be split for faster scanning.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness5/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a creation tool with no output schema and annotations already covering the safety profile, the description supplies the return shape (public URL), the block-translation behavior, and the escape hatch to the dashboard editor. Nothing needed to call it correctly is missing.

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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description rises above it by explaining that cta_text does not yield an actual CTA link but is folded into the translated hero block — a semantic caveat about input interpretation that the per-field schema descriptions do not convey.

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 ("Create a hosted landing page") and immediately scopes it to "a single hero block (headline, subheadline, CTA)". No sibling tool creates landing pages, so the agent can place it unambiguously among the email/campaign/domain tools.

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?

The description explicitly names the when-not case and the alternative: "for multi-block pages or a real CTA link, use the landing page editor in the MisarMail dashboard." This routes the agent away from the tool for cases it cannot handle, which is exactly what usage guidance should do.

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

All MisarMail MCP Server 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