Create a new local mailbox for receiving email (autonomous mode). Each address gets its own inbox accessible via MCP tools.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| address | Yes | Email address for the mailbox (e.g. sales@company.com) | |
| display_name | No | Display name for the mailbox |
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, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that each address gets its own inbox accessible via MCP tools, which is useful behavioral context. However, it doesn't explain what 'autonomous mode' entails, potential side effects (e.g., duplicate addresses), or required permissions, leaving some transparency gaps.
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 core action, and contains no redundant information. It is concise while providing essential details about purpose and outcome.
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 simple create tool with 2 parameters and no output schema, the description conveys the purpose and result (each address gets its own inbox). It doesn't explain return values or error handling, but given the tool's simplicity, the current coverage is mostly sufficient. A slightly higher score is prevented by the lack of any mention of what happens after creation or prerequisites.
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?
Input schema coverage is 100% (both 'address' and 'display_name' have descriptions). The description adds no extra parameter meaning beyond the schema, so a baseline score of 3 is appropriate given the schema already documents the parameters.
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 action ('Create') and the resource ('a new local mailbox for receiving email'), specifying 'autonomous mode' which distinguishes it from sibling tools like create_email_account. It also adds that each address gets its own inbox, further clarifying the tool's specific function.
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 clear context for when to use the tool—creating a local mailbox for receiving email in autonomous mode—and implies its scope (local mailboxes vs. other email creations). It doesn't explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the context is sufficient for basic usage differentiation.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
