Create an email account with SMTP credentials. Returns SMTP password once — save it. The account can then send/receive via this server.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| domain | No | Sending domain (auto-derived from address if omitted) | |
| address | Yes | Email address (e.g. sales@company.com) | |
| display_name | No | Display name for the account |
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?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It highlights a critical trait: 'Returns SMTP password once — save it,' which is non-obvious and essential for the agent. It also states the account can send/receive via this server, implying successful setup. However, it omits potential side effects like domain verification requirements or conflict behavior if the address already exists, so it is not fully comprehensive.
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 two sentences, front-loaded with the action verb, and every sentence earns its place. The critical 'save it' instruction and the usage capability are both included without any fluff. No redundant or irrelevant information is present.
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?
For a tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the essential outcome: it returns the SMTP password exactly once. It also indicates the account is operational for sending/receiving. However, it does not mention upstream requirements such as domain verification or what happens if the address already exists, which could be relevant for an agent to use the tool correctly. Still, it provides a clear and sufficient overview for 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?
The input schema has 100% description coverage for all parameters (address, domain, display_name), so the schema already explains their meanings. The description adds no parameter-specific details beyond what the schema provides. Baseline of 3 is appropriate since the schema does the heavy lifting and the description does not conflict or add extra semantics.
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 a specific action: 'Create an email account with SMTP credentials.' It specifies the resource (email account) and distinguishes it from siblings like create_mailbox by emphasizing SMTP functionality. The added detail that the account can send/receive via the server further clarifies the tool's unique role.
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 description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as create_mailbox or configure_mailgun. It does not mention exclusions, prerequisites, or when not to use it. The only implied usage is that the account is for sending/receiving, but no explicit comparison or rationale is given.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
