Skip to main content
Glama

inbin

by io.github.yaotsakpo
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

claim_trial_inbox

Start connecting an agent to this inbox address, permanently -- the SAME address. Works whether this is a brand-new trial inbox OR one that's already been claimed by a different agent before: more than one agent can independently connect to the same inbox, each getting its own separate, revocable connection. Returns a claim_url immediately -- share it in chat right away. The human clicks it, enters their email, enters the one-time code Inbin sends there, and a credential is ISSUED. That is NOT the same as the connection working yet -- the human still has to install that credential into an MCP client's config before anything can actually use it, and you will never see the credential itself, by design. Call await_trial_inbox_claim afterward to see the human finish the email+code step, then claim_connection_status (repeatedly, possibly much later -- installing a client is not instant) to see whether a client has actually started using it. The inbox must still exist (not yet expired) for this to work; it does not need to still be a TRIAL inbox specifically.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
inbox_addressYesThe exact inbox address to connect to, e.g. abc123@in.inbin.dev.
connector_labelNoOptional label identifying which agent/client is connecting, e.g. 'Muse'. Shown to the human as the name of this specific connection so they can tell multiple connections apart later.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed2 schema fields changed
    • addedInput schema / properties / connector_label
      Added value: +{
+  "description": "Optional label identifying which agent/client is connecting, e.g. 'Muse'. Shown to the human as the name of this specific connection so they can tell multiple connections apart later.",
+  "type": "string"
+}
    • changedInput schema / properties / inbox_address / description
      Previous value: -"The exact trial inbox address to claim, e.g. abc123@in.inbin.dev."New value: +"The exact inbox address to connect to, e.g. abc123@in.inbin.dev."
  2. Added

TDQS

A4.4/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations only supply readOnlyHint=false and idempotentHint=false; the description adds substantial context beyond them: it returns a claim_url, the human must complete an email + one-time-code step, a credential is ISSUED but not the same as working, the credential is never visible to the agent, and multiple agents can hold independent revocable connections. That multiple-connections detail usefully explains the non-idempotent annotation. It stops short of discussing failure/expiry error behavior.

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 action and its permanence, then the workflow. Every sentence carries real information (the claim flow, the issue-vs-working distinction, the follow-up tools), though the paragraph is long and could be tightened with enumeration.

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?

No output schema exists, and the description compensates by naming the immediate return (claim_url) and the full multi-step human/agent handoff through to claim_connection_status. For a tool with an inherently multi-stage async workflow, nothing needed to call it 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 coverage is 100% and both parameters are already documented in the schema, so the description adds no format or constraint detail beyond it. Baseline 3 applies when the schema carries the full 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Start connecting an agent to this inbox address, permanently -- the SAME address') and explicitly covers both cases (new trial inbox vs. already-claimed), which distinguishes it from create_trial_inbox and the await/status siblings.

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?

Names the follow-up tools by name and the condition for each ('Call await_trial_inbox_claim afterward... then claim_connection_status (repeatedly, possibly much later)'), and states the precondition (inbox must still exist, need not still be a trial). Routing is unambiguous.

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

All inbin 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