connect_inbox_placementStore the org's seed-list inbox-placement provider + API key (provider: 'mailreach' or 'glockapps'; GlockApps also needs projectId). Enables start_inbox_placement_test. Requires an owner/admin API key with write or full scope.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| apiKey | Yes | The vendor API key. | |
| provider | Yes | Inbox-placement vendor. | |
| projectId | No | GlockApps project id (required for provider=glockapps). |
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?
Annotations already indicate it is not read-only, and the description adds the need for an owner/admin key with write or full scope, which is useful auth context. It does not contradict the annotations.
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 a single, efficient sentence with semicolons, front-loading the main action and avoiding any redundant words. Every clause adds meaningful information.
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?
Given the simple schema, lack of output schema, and presence of sibling tools, the description covers the core action, prerequisites, and relationship to start_inbox_placement_test. Minor gap: it does not mention whether storing a new provider overwrites an existing one, but this is not critical for the tool's basic use.
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?
Schema coverage is 100%, with all parameters described. The description reiterates the provider enum and the projectId requirement, which are already in the schema, adding only minimal context like 'seed-list' to clarify the API key's purpose.
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 clearly states the tool stores the org's seed-list inbox-placement provider and API key, naming the two supported providers and the additional projectId for GlockApps. This specific verb+resource framing distinguishes it from sibling tools like connect_snds.
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?
It explicitly says this enables start_inbox_placement_test, providing clear context for when to use the tool. It also specifies the required API key scope, but it does not mention alternatives or when not to use it.
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.
Tools have distinct purposes overall, but some minor overlap exists between get_domain and get_deliverability_score, as well as between list_scans and get_scan_job. However, descriptions clarify the differences.
All tool names follow a clear verb_noun pattern (e.g., analyze_headers, check_blocklists, get_deliverability_score) with consistent snake_case, making it easy for an agent to predict tool names.
26 tools is slightly above the ideal range but appropriate for a comprehensive email deliverability service covering scanning, DNS fixes, DMARC, inbox placement, SNDS, alerts, and sharing. The count feels justified.
The tool surface covers core deliverability workflows: scanning, DNS fixes, DMARC, blocklists, inbox placement, SNDS, alerts, and sharing. Minor gaps exist (e.g., no explicit add domain tool), but the scan_domain tool covers that use case.