GoodSender

Create Sender Identity

create_sender_identity

Idempotent

Create a new sender identity.

The sender's domain must exist and be verified. Verification requires all five of its DNS records — both DKIM CNAMEs, the return-path CNAME, the click-tracking CNAME and the DMARC TXT — to be in place. The Domain page of the GoodSender Console (https://goodsender.com/dashboard) lists which records are still missing. 'check_sender_domain_stats' reports existing sender domains and their verification status.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "Sender": "<Sender>"
    },
    "name": "create_sender_identity"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`Sender`	Yes	Sender identity.

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`Result`	Yes	Result of the operation.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed2 schema fields changedNov 2, 2026
- addedInput schema / properties / Sender / properties / Address / description
```
Added value: +"Email address, e.g. ada@example.com."
```
- addedInput schema / properties / Sender / properties / Name / description
```
Added value: +"Optional display name shown with the address, e.g. Ada Lovelace."
```
First observedNov 2, 2026

TDQS

A4/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare the write/idempotent/non-destructive profile, so the description's job is added context, and it delivers: creation fails unless the domain is verified with all five DNS records, plus a pointer to the console page listing missing records. It stops short of saying what happens when the identity already exists (relevant given idempotentHint=true).

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?

Front-loaded with the action, then prerequisites, then the escape hatch to check_sender_domain_stats. The console URL is marginally optional but reinforces where to diagnose missing records; no sentence is filler.

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

Completeness4/5

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

An output schema exists, so return values needn't be described, and the failure precondition is covered thoroughly. The only gap is behavior on an already-existing identity, which matters for a tool annotated idempotentHint=true.

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% and both nested fields are self-documented, so the schema baseline is already strong. The description adds a real semantic constraint the schema cannot express: the Address must belong to an existing, fully verified domain.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb and resource ('Create a new sender identity'), which is unmistakable against siblings like edit_sender_identity and list_sender_identities. It doesn't explicitly contrast itself with the edit sibling, but the create/edit distinction is carried by the verb.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Gives a concrete precondition — the sender's domain must exist and be verified — and enumerates the exact DNS prerequisite (two DKIM CNAMEs, return-path CNAME, click-tracking CNAME, DMARC TXT). It also routes the agent to check_sender_domain_stats for verification status, though it never says when to prefer this over edit_sender_identity for an existing address.

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

All GoodSender tools Inspect

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.