Skip to main content
Glama

MisarMail MCP Server

by io.github.Misar-AI

toggle_integration

Idempotent

Turn one third-party integration on or off.

This changes live behaviour: DISABLING stops all syncing through that integration, so data quietly stops flowing until it is re-enabled. It does not disconnect the integration or revoke its credentials — the connection and its scopes survive, which is why re-enabling picks up where it left off.

Safe to repeat: setting an integration to the state it is already in changes nothing. Requires an API key. Call list_integrations first so you know the current state rather than toggling blind.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
enabledYestrue to enable, false to disable
integration_idYesIntegration ID

Schema Changelog

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

  1. First observed

TDQS

A4.9/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

The description adds substantial context beyond annotations: explains that disabling stops syncing but preserves credentials/connection, that re-enabling resumes, and that repeating the same toggle is safe. It also aligns with the idempotentHint annotation. No contradiction.

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 three short paragraphs, each serving a purpose: primary action, behavioral impact, and usage guidance. No fluff or redundancy; 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?

Given no output schema, the description fully covers what the agent needs to know: purpose, side effects, safety, and prerequisite. It is complete for a tool of this complexity.

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 coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds value by clarifying consequences of each enabled state (e.g., 'DISABLING stops all syncing') and reinforces idempotency, which goes slightly beyond the schema definitions.

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 the tool's purpose: 'Turn one third-party integration on or off.' It uses a specific verb and resource, and distinguishes from sibling tools like toggle_automation by specifying 'third-party integration'.

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 provides explicit guidance: 'Call list_integrations first so you know the current state rather than toggling blind.' It also notes the prerequisite of an API key and implies when not to use by explaining what it does not do (disconnect or revoke credentials).

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