bounce_activateRe-activate a bounced address.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| Bounce | No | Updated bounce object |
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?
The description directly contradicts the annotation readOnlyHint=true; 'Re-activate' implies a write operation, while the annotation declares the tool as read-only. This is a serious inconsistency that misleads the agent about the tool's side effects. Other annotations (idempotentHint, openWorldHint) are not addressed in the description.
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 extremely short (four words) but under-specifies the tool's behavior and parameter semantics. It is not a case of efficient conciseness but rather insufficient specification, similar to a placeholder.
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?
Despite having only one parameter and an output schema, the tool description is incomplete due to the annotation contradiction and lack of usage guidance. The agent cannot correctly infer the tool's effect or safety profile, making the description inadequate for its complexity.
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 schema description coverage is 0%, and the description does not explain the meaning or format of the 'id' parameter. There is no additional semantic context provided anywhere, so the agent must guess what identifier to supply.
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 'Re-activate a bounced address' uses a specific verb ('Re-activate') and identifies the resource ('a bounced address'), making the tool's purpose clear. It also distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'bounce' and 'bounces' by implying an activation action rather than a bounce-creation or listing action.
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?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of prerequisites, typical scenarios, or exclusions, leaving the agent without context for appropriate invocation.
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 tool set mixes multiple domains (Postmark email, Pipeworx data queries, Polymarket betting, memory utilities) with several overlapping tools. ask_pipeworx and ask_pipeworx_beta are essentially identical, send/send_batch and bounces/bounce are similar, and multiple polymarket analysis tools (polymarket_arbitrage, polymarket_edges, polymarket_edge_tracker) could be confused. Despite detailed descriptions, the sheer number of query and analysis tools increases the chance of misselection.
All tool names use lowercase_with_underscores, so the casing is consistent. However, there is no uniform verb_noun pattern: some start with verbs (ask, send, bounce, resolve, validate), while others are noun phrases (server, bounces, recent_alerts, entity_profile). This mixed semantic structure makes it less predictable, but the names are still readable.
41 tools is far above the typical well-scoped range of 3-15. The server combines multiple unrelated domains—email, data lookup, prediction markets, memory, and subscriptions—resulting in a heavyweight and unfocused surface. Most of the tools would be better split into separate, purpose-specific servers.
For a server named Postmark, the email side is incomplete: there is no update server configuration, message stream management, or inbound email handling. The Pipeworx data tools provide good read coverage but lack write/management operations for entities. The inclusion of unrelated tools makes the surface feel arbitrary rather than complete for any single domain.