Skip to main content
Glama

MisarMail MCP Server

by io.github.Misar-AI

list_forms

Read-onlyIdempotent

List signup forms on the account with their embed status and conversion counts.

Use it to find a form id before get_form or get_form_submissions, and to compare how forms are performing against each other. It returns the forms themselves, not the people who filled them in — that is get_form_submissions.

Reads only; no form is created, published, or unpublished. Requires an API key. A form that exists is not necessarily embedded anywhere, so a zero conversion count may mean it was never installed rather than that it converts badly.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
pageNoPage number (default 1)
limitNoResults per page (default 20)
statusNoFilter by form status

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.

  1. First observed

TDQS

A4.7/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds valuable context: 'Reads only; no form is created, published, or unpublished,' 'Requires an API key,' and a caveat about zero conversion counts. This goes beyond the annotations and enriches agent understanding.

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?

Three well-structured sentences: first states purpose, second gives usage guidance, third adds behavioral notes and caveats. Every sentence earns its place with zero fluff. Front-loaded with the core purpose.

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?

The description is complete for a list tool: it explains what is returned, when to use it, prerequisites (API key), and a potential misinterpretation of conversion counts. Given the simple schema and no output schema, this is fully sufficient.

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 description coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description does not reference individual parameters, but the schema already documents page, limit, and status clearly. The description adds no extra parameter-level semantics, but since the schema is complete, no deduction needed.

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?

The description clearly states 'List signup forms on the account with their embed status and conversion counts.' It names the exact resource and scope, and differentiates from siblings by explicitly mentioning get_form and get_form_submissions, clarifying that it returns forms, not submissions.

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?

Provides explicit guidance: 'Use it to find a form id before get_form or get_form_submissions, and to compare how forms are performing against each other.' Also states what it is not for: 'It returns the forms themselves, not the people who filled them in — that is get_form_submissions.' This is clear when-to-use and when-not-to-use.

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
RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

A3.7/5.0
Disambiguation3/5

Most tools are cleanly separated by resource and action, and the descriptions do a good job of cross-referencing related tools. However, there are several close clusters—get_analytics vs generate_report, get_deliverability_score vs run_deliverability_audit, check_dmarc vs verify_domain, and list_emails vs list_inbox_conversations vs get_email—that could cause an agent to pick the wrong one. The detailed descriptions reduce but do not eliminate this ambiguity.

Naming Consistency5/5

Tool names follow a consistent snake_case verb_noun pattern throughout: create_, get_, list_, send_, toggle_, and so on. Even multi-word actions like select_ab_test_winner and categorize_inbox_emails stay uniform. The only slight deviation is the bare verb upgrade, but it is readable and does not break the overall pattern.

Tool Count2/5

54 tools is far beyond the typical well-scoped MCP surface and lands heavily in the 'too many' range. While the domain is broad, many tools could be consolidated—multiple analytics/reporting tools, several deliverability checks, and separate email/inbox listing tools create redundancy. The sheer number increases selection overhead and makes the toolset harder for an agent to navigate reliably.

Completeness3/5

The core email marketing lifecycle is represented: domains, contacts, campaigns, templates, automations, sends, and analytics all have main operations. However, there are notable gaps—no update/delete for campaigns, templates, forms, or automations; no create/update/delete for forms; no sandbox enable/disable; and no way to install marketplace items. These are workable gaps but would cause failures for agents trying to perform full lifecycle management.

Resources