mail_inbox_create
Create disposable receive-only inbox @mail.toolapi.org (24h TTL). Returns address + secret token.
Input Schema
TableJSON Schema
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| prefix | No | Optional local-part prefix (alphanumeric) |
ToolAPI
by org.toolapi
Schema Changelog
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
- Added
TDQS
A3.6/5.0
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Description mentions 24h TTL and 'receive-only' but lacks details on side effects, error conditions, or required authentication. Given no annotations, more behavioral context would be beneficial.
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?
Single sentence with clear front-loading of verb and resource. No wasted words, though additional context could be added without harming conciseness.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Covers creation basics but misses integration hints for sibling tools (e.g., needing the token for mail_inbox_read) and does not explain 'receive-only' limitations. Adequate for a simple tool.
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 covers the single parameter 'prefix' with adequate description. The tool description does not add extra semantics or constraints beyond what the schema already provides.
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?
Description clearly states the verb 'Create', specific resource 'disposable receive-only inbox', and domain '@mail.toolapi.org' with TTL and return values, distinguishing it from sibling tools like mail_inbox_list and mail_inbox_read.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No explicit guidance on when to use or avoid this tool. The purpose is clear, but there are no usage boundary hints or alternative suggestions, leaving the agent to infer from sibling names.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Try in Browser
Glama MCP Gateway
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
TDQS
B3/5.0
Disambiguation5/5
Every tool has a clear, distinct purpose with thorough descriptions. Even closely related tools like base64_decode/encode and hash_md5/sha256 are easily differentiated by name and description.
Naming Consistency5/5
All tools follow a consistent lowercase_underscore naming convention, typically in a <domain>_<action> or <action>_<domain> pattern. There are no jarring deviations or mixed styles.
Tool Count1/5
193 tools is an extreme count, far beyond what any focused server needs. While each tool has utility, the sheer number creates a kitchen-sink effect that overwhelms agents and hinders discoverability.
Completeness4/5
Within each subdomain (JSON, cron, JWT, etc.), the coverage is exhaustive, covering validation, conversion, parsing, and more. Minor gaps exist (e.g., YAML-to-TOML conversion missing), but overall it is remarkably complete.