get_inbox_placement_statusReport whether a seed-list inbox-placement provider is connected for the org, which provider, and how many tests have run. Lists the supported providers when not connected.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
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 declare this as readOnly, non-destructive, and idempotent. The description adds value beyond annotations by specifying exactly what the tool reports (whether connected, which provider, test count, and supported providers when not connected), giving agents a clear picture of the output content without contradicting any hints.
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?
Two sentences, front-loaded with the verb 'Report', and every word adds value. It efficiently conveys the tool's scope and the fallback behavior without any fluff or repetition of the title.
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 tool's low complexity (no parameters, no output schema), the description is largely complete: it covers what is reported and the behavior when not connected. It could optionally mention the output format, but for a status-checking tool this is sufficient. The description covers the key context needed for an agent to select and invoke it correctly.
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?
There are zero parameters, so the baseline is 4 as per rubric. The description adds no parameter-specific details, but none are needed. The schema coverage is 100% (empty schema), and the description compensates by explaining the fully parameterless nature implicitly.
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 uses a specific verb 'Report' and names the exact resource (seed-list inbox-placement provider connection status), including what aspects are reported (connection, provider, test count). It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like connect_inbox_placement and list_inbox_placement_tests by focusing on connection status rather than individual tests.
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?
The context of use is implied: checking connection status and seeing supported providers when not connected. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this vs alternatives, nor does it mention any exclusions or prerequisites. The 'when not connected' clause hints at a use case but does not name alternatives like connect_inbox_placement.
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.