Skip to main content
Glama

Set my mail preferences

set_mail_preferences
Destructive

The user's own verdict mail — nobody else's. night: always (every mail as it comes), after_deploy (the default: at night, 22:00–08:00 UTC, only a break right after a deploy comes at once; the rest waits until 08:00 UTC) or morning (everything waits until 08:00 UTC). email: false stops every email CheckMyApp sends them (results, notices, answers — a notice that an agent connected as them and an invitation someone sends still arrive), true turns it back on. emails: single kinds of mail on or off, the rest unchanged (a security notice about a connected agent and an invitation always arrive). also_email_agent_told: true sends them mail about what you already told them too; by default they get only what you have not picked up within 15 minutes. With none of them, it answers what is set now.

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "set_mail_preferences"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
emailNofalse: no email from CheckMyApp to the user, save the two always on — a notice that an agent connected as them, and an invitation; true: back on
nightNoalways · after_deploy (default) · morning — what verdict mail does at night, 22:00–08:00 UTC
emailsNoSingle kinds of mail on (true) or off (false), the rest unchanged: verdict · break_escalation · only_you_can · cause_notice · trial_paused · balance_used_up · feedback_answer
also_email_agent_toldNotrue: also email the user what you, their agent, already told them. false (default): they are emailed only what you have not picked up within 15 minutes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observed

TDQS

A3.7/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations flag this as destructive/non-readOnly, and the description adds substantial behavioral context: defaults, which notices are never suppressed, and the delayed-notification semantics. It does not state reversibility or permission requirements, so not a 5.

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 content is valuable but densely packed into run-on sentences with nested parentheticals and no front-loaded action statement. It is readable but not optimized for quick scanning.

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

Completeness4/5

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

For a mutating preference tool with a nested object and no output schema, it covers defaults, exceptions, and the query-when-empty behavior. Missing only explicit reversibility/confirmation semantics.

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

Parameters4/5

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

Despite 100% schema coverage, the description adds real meaning: the 22:00–08:00 window behavior, the always-on exceptions (agent-connect notice, invitation), and the 15-minute pickup rule for also_email_agent_told. These go beyond the schema's short field descriptions.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description enumerates each preference (night, email, emails, also_email_agent_told) and what it controls, making the resource clear. It never states the core action as a verb (set/update), which is left to the title, but the scope is unambiguous and distinct from any sibling.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines3/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

It hints at a read mode ('With none of them, it answers what is set now'), which is useful, but gives no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance or comparison to sibling tools. The usage context is implied rather than stated.

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

Try in Browser

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.