Skip to main content
Glama

MisarMail MCP Server

by io.github.Misar-AI

list_integrations

Read-onlyIdempotent

List every third-party integration connected to the account, with its sync status and when it last ran.

Start here when a question involves external data — it tells you which integrations exist and whether they are actually syncing. For one integration's configuration and scopes, follow up with get_integration; to turn one on or off, use toggle_integration.

Reads only; nothing is connected, disconnected, or re-synced. Requires an API key. An integration listed as connected can still be failing to sync, so check the status rather than assuming. An empty list means nothing is connected yet, which is not an error.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
pageNoPage number (default 1)
limitNoResults per page (default 20)

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?

The description adds valuable context beyond the readOnlyHint annotation: it requires an API key, warns that 'an integration listed as connected can still be failing to sync,' and clarifies that an empty list is 'not an error.' None of these details are present in annotations, and they help set correct expectations.

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?

The description is front-loaded with the core purpose in the first sentence, followed by concise usage guidance and caveats. Every sentence earns its place without repetition or filler.

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?

Despite no output schema, the description states what the tool returns (integrations, sync status, last run time) and includes caveats for typical failure modes (stale status, empty list). It also mentions authentication. The coverage is thorough for a read-only list 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?

The input schema already fully describes both parameters (page and limit) with their defaults, achieving 100% schema coverage. The description adds no additional parameter-level guidance, so it lands at the baseline of 3.

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 specifies the action ('List every third-party integration connected to the account') and the returned data ('with its sync status and when it last ran'). It explicitly distinguishes from siblings by positioning itself as the entry point for external data queries and pointing to get_integration and toggle_integration for related operations.

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 gives an explicit when-to-use instruction: 'Start here when a question involves external data.' It names alternatives for specific follow-ups ('For one integration's configuration and scopes, follow up with get_integration; to turn one on or off, use toggle_integration') and adds exclusions via 'Reads only; nothing is connected, disconnected, or re-synced.'

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