mailboxes.listList the tenant's active mailboxes (owner is derived from the API key). Optionally look up a single mailbox by exact address.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| address | No | Exact mailbox address to look up (e.g. user@minutemail.cc). Optional. |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| items | Yes |
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, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, covering safety. The description adds meaningful behavioral context: only active mailboxes are returned, and the mailbox owner is derived from the API key (tenant scoping). It also discloses exact-match semantics for the optional address parameter.
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?
Two tightly packed clauses in one sentence: the core action and scope come first, followed by the optional single-lookup behavior. No filler.
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 1-parameter, read-only, idempotent list tool with an output schema and full schema descriptions, the description covers the key unknowns: scope, active filter, and exact-match behavior. It could explicitly state the default when no address is given, but this is strongly implied by 'optionally.'
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?
The input schema has 100% description coverage for the only parameter, so baseline is 3. The description's mention of 'exact address' restates what the schema already says and adds no new semantic detail.
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?
States a specific verb ('List'), resource ('tenant's active mailboxes'), and scoping (owner derived from API key, active only). The optional single-address lookup is also noted, which distinguishes it from a pure list-all tool and from mailboxes.get by describing what happens with the address parameter.
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 provides clear usage context: it lists tenant mailboxes or can look up a single one by exact address. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it, but the optional behavior and scoping make the intended use obvious.
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.