identities.getFetch a single mock identity by ID.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| identityId | Yes | Identity ID |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | Identity ID | |
| name | No | Display name | |
| clientId | Yes | OAuth client ID the identity belongs to | |
| username | No | Identity username | |
| avatarUrl | No | Avatar URL | |
| mailboxAddress | Yes | Mailbox address the identity is linked to |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds 'mock identity' context but does not disclose behavior beyond the annotations, such as what happens if the ID does not exist.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is one short, front-loaded sentence with no filler. Every word adds meaning, and the key scoping ('single', 'by ID') is placed immediately.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a single-parameter read operation with a rich output schema and comprehensive safety annotations, this description is fully sufficient. The word 'mock' sets appropriate expectations about the data, and no critical calling information is missing.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100% and the identityId parameter is already documented as 'Identity ID'. The description only says 'by ID', adding no meaningful semantic value beyond what the input schema provides, so the baseline of 3 applies.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states a specific verb ('Fetch'), a specific resource ('a single mock identity'), and the lookup key ('by ID'). This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like identities.list, identities.create, and identities.update without needing to open the schema.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies this is the tool to use when a single identity is needed by its ID, but it does not explicitly mention alternatives or state when not to use it. The usage context is inferable from 'single' and 'by ID', but not explicitly spelled out.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
The resource namespaces make most tools easy to tell apart, and each action has a clear target. A couple of boundary cases exist, such as attachments.add versus mails.inject, since both relate to putting files on a simulated email, but descriptions mostly resolve the ambiguity.
Every tool follows the same resource.action convention, and the action verbs are predictable across the set, including delete_bulk and rotate_secret. The pattern is uniform even across different resource families, making the API very predictable.
With 40 tools, the surface is quite large for an MCP server, even though the namespaces are clean. Many singular and bulk delete variants could be combined or expressed as parameters to reduce the count, so the set feels heavier than it needs to be.
The server covers the main lifecycle needs for mailboxes, emails, attachments, archived mailboxes, domains, identities, OAuth clients, and team management. Minor gaps remain, such as no mailbox update/rename, no manual archive action, and no invitation acceptance endpoint, but agents can work around these.