email-spam-tester

Wait for the report

wait_for_report

Read-onlyIdempotent

Wait until the message arrives and has been analysed, then summarise it.

Call it after the email has been sent to the address from
get_test_address. Blocks rather than returning "not ready yet": an agent
told to poll writes a sleep loop and usually gives up before the analysis
finishes. Provider placement keeps filling in for up to 30 minutes after
the report; get_report reads the latest.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`slug`	Yes	The slug get_test_address returned, the last part of the report URL.
`timeout_seconds`	No	How long to block waiting for the message and its analysis, in seconds. The checks are ready in well under a minute; the fix plan takes about another one. Past this the tool returns what it has.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`view`	Yes	test, report, mailbox, mailboxes, series or error

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed6 schema fields changedSep 30, 2026

addedOutput schema / additionalProperties
```
Added value: +true
```

addedOutput schema / description

Added value: +"What every tool returns for the card; `view` says which card."

removedOutput schema / properties / result

Removed value: -{
-  "title": "Result",
-  "type": "string"
-}

addedOutput schema / properties / view

Added value: +{
+  "description": "test, report, mailbox, mailboxes, series or error",
+  "title": "View",
+  "type": "string"
+}

changedOutput schema / required

Previous value: -[
-  "result"
-]New value: +[
+  "view"
+]

changedOutput schema / title

Previous value: -"wait_for_reportOutput"New value: +"Output"

Changed4 schema fields changedSep 18, 2026

addedInput schema / properties / slug / description

Added value: +"The slug get_test_address returned, the last part of the report URL."

addedInput schema / properties / timeout_seconds / description

Added value: +"How long to block waiting for the message and its analysis, in seconds. The checks are ready in well under a minute; the fix plan takes about another one. Past this the tool returns what it has."

addedInput schema / properties / timeout_seconds / maximum
```
Added value: +600
```
addedInput schema / properties / timeout_seconds / minimum
```
Added value: +5
```

First observedSep 17, 2026

TDQS

A4.6/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, but the description adds genuinely non-obvious behavior: it blocks rather than returning a not-ready signal, it returns partial results past the timeout, and provider placement keeps filling in for up to 30 minutes afterward. This is the kind of context annotations cannot convey.

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 core action, then rationale and the sibling pointer. Slightly more prose than strictly needed, but each sentence carries a distinct piece of information (precondition, blocking rationale, post-report window).

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained. Combined with 100% schema coverage and rich annotations, the description covers the sequencing, blocking behavior, and timeout outcome — nothing an agent needs to call this correctly is missing.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so both parameters are already fully documented, including the slug's provenance and the timeout semantics. The description adds only marginal restatement (slug comes from get_test_address), so the baseline of 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('wait until the message arrives and has been analysed') and explicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling get_report ('get_report reads the latest'). An agent can tell this is the blocking wait rather than the non-blocking read without inspecting either schema.

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?

Gives an explicit precondition — call it after the email has been sent to the address returned by get_test_address — and names the alternative (get_report) plus the polling failure mode it is designed to prevent. Both when-to-use and the sibling relationship are spelled out.

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

All email-spam-tester 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.