Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In

Proxy Mail QA

by qa.proxymail
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

Get values for a sign-up form

form_values

Gives what to type or pick in each field of a sign-up form, from a new test address made for it (or one made earlier: address). Send what the page says about each field: its type, name, label, placeholder, autocomplete, rules (pattern, min_length, max_length) and a drop-down's options. The answer has a value for each field id: the email, names, a username and a password that fit the field's rules, the date of birth in the field's format (or day, month and year), and a country its drop-down offers; null with a note for anything else, such as a terms checkbox. A marketing consent checkbox (kind marketing_consent) is yours to tick or not; record_consent records what you chose and whether it started ticked (checked). A new address's password is saved on it and shown only here. Proxy Mail QA doesn't fill in or submit the form: you do, with your browser tools.

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
ageNoFor a new address, when the form asks for a date of birth: the age. Default: adult.
siteNoFor a new address: the form's host or page URL, such as staging.example.com.
testNoWith run_id: the test or step this call belongs to, shown beside what it saw in the report.
labelNoFor a new address: what it is for.
domainNoFor a new address: the mail domain.
fieldsYes
run_idNoA run from start_run: what this call sees is added to its report.
addressNoUse this address (made earlier) instead of making a new one. Its saved password is not returned here.
countryNoFor a new address: where the persona lives. Default: one the form offers.
environmentNoFor a new address: which environment, such as staging, qa or local.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed3 schema fields changed
    • changedInput schema / properties / domain / enum
      Previous value: -[
-  "mailclub.dev",
-  "enable.li"
-]New value: +[
+  "mailclub.dev",
+  "enable.li",
+  "valida.te.it"
+]
    • addedInput schema / properties / fields / items / properties / checked
      Added value: +{
+  "description": "A checkbox: whether it is ticked as the page loads (for a marketing box, that becomes prechecked).",
+  "type": "boolean"
+}
    • changedInput schema / properties / fields / items / properties / id / description
      Previous value: -"Your name for the field (a ref, a selector): it comes back with its value."New value: +"Your name for the field (a ref, a selector): it comes back with its value. Used to tell what the field is only when it has no name, label, placeholder or autocomplete."
  2. Changed2 schema fields changed
    • addedInput schema / properties / environment
      Added value: +{
+  "description": "For a new address: which environment, such as staging, qa or local.",
+  "maxLength": 40,
+  "type": "string"
+}
    • addedInput schema / properties / site
      Added value: +{
+  "description": "For a new address: the form's host or page URL, such as staging.example.com.",
+  "maxLength": 300,
+  "type": "string"
+}
  3. First observed

TDQS

A3.9/5.0
Behavior4/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already flag a non-read-only, non-idempotent operation; the description adds the concrete side effect (a new test address is created), that the new address's password is persisted and surfaced only here, that an existing address's password is not returned, and how unmapped fields come back as null with a note. That is meaningful context beyond the annotations, though error/rate-limit behavior is absent.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness3/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The key point (what values it produces) is front-loaded, but the text is a run of long, clause-heavy sentences with stacked parentheticals that make it harder to scan than it needs to be. The content mostly earns its place, but the structure is dense rather than economical.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a 10-parameter tool with no output schema, the description carries the return-value burden well, explaining the per-field value mapping, null-plus-note fallback, consent handling, and address reuse semantics. Remaining gaps (failure modes, how unknown field kinds are treated beyond null) are minor.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

With 90% schema coverage the schema already documents most parameters, but the description adds real meaning: which field attributes to send (type, name, label, placeholder, autocomplete, rules, options), the role of `id` as a fallback identifier, and the relationship between the returned values and field ids. This goes beyond restating the schema.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb and resource: it returns the value to type or pick for each field of a sign-up form, optionally tied to a new or previously created test address. The purpose is unmistakable, though it never names or contrasts a sibling tool, relying on the uniqueness of the task instead.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Gives clear context: pass a new address or an existing one via `address`, and it explicitly points to the sibling `record_consent` for recording the marketing-consent choice. It also draws the boundary that the tool does not fill in or submit the form, but stops short of stating explicit when-not-to-use conditions.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

All Proxy Mail QA toolsInspect
Try in Browser
One endpoint for every MCP toolRayrun runs every MCP server behind one URL and holds the credentials. Each call is decided per client, tool, and argument, then recorded.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Directories

Listed in ChatGPT · Proxy Mail QA

Last observed

Resources