Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In

CheckMyApp

by io.github.sorokinvj
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

Get a test inbox

request_inbox
Destructive

Get an email address of checkmyapp's for one test login of the app (default, or a named one such as admin). Register that test user with it through the app's own sign-up, or set the user's email to it: the sign-in links, codes and confirmations the app mails there reach checkmyapp. The same address comes back every time. use_as_login: true makes it that login's email, for an app whose users sign in by e-mail link or code — no password needed.

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": {
      "app_id": "<app_id>"
    },
    "name": "request_inbox"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
teamNoAct in another of your teams, by its name or id (whoami lists them). Omitted: the key's own team
labelNoWhich test login: "default" (the default) or a named one such as "admin"
app_idYesApp id from list_apps or create_app
use_as_loginNotrue: this address becomes that login's email, and the login signs in by e-mail (a magic link or an e-mailed code) — no password needed

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observed

TDQS

A3.7/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

The description adds genuine behavioral context: the address is stable ("The same address comes back every time") and it explains what use_as_login actually does to the login. However, annotations declare destructiveHint=true and the description never warns that setting use_as_login may overwrite an existing email/password on that login, nor says what gets destroyed or whether it can be reverted. With annotations present, the description adds value but leaves the destructive surface undisclosed.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness3/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The purpose is front-loaded in the first clause, which is good, but the rest is a run-on chain of colon-separated clauses that takes effort to parse. The closing sentence about use_as_login largely duplicates the schema's own parameter description, which is redundant in a tool definition.

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

Completeness3/5

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

For a 4-parameter tool with no output schema, the description should say more about what is returned and about the destructive edge cases. It hints at the return value ("The same address comes back every time") but never states the response shape, and it omits what happens when the target login already has an email. Adequate but with clear gaps for a tool flagged destructive.

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 the schema already documents team, label, app_id, and use_as_login in detail. The description's only added nuance is the default/named-label behavior and the stability of the address; its use_as_login explanation largely restates the schema text. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema carries the parameter burden.

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?

"Get an email address of checkmyapp's for one test login of the app" names a specific verb and a specific resource, and scopes it to a single test login (default or named). An agent can immediately tell this apart from siblings like list_apps or set_mail_preferences.

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?

It gives concrete when-to-use instructions: register the test user through the app's own sign-up, or set the user's email to this address so that sign-in links, codes, and confirmations land in checkmyapp. It also explains the use_as_login branch for apps that authenticate by email link or code. It does not name alternative tools or the case where this tool should not be used, so it falls short of a 5.

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

All CheckMyApp toolsInspect
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.

Resources