Skip to main content
Glama

domani

by run.domani

Create Hosted Mailbox

create_hosted_mailbox

Create a real IMAP/SMTP mailbox on a domain you own (connect Apple Mail, Thunderbird, or any mail client), instead of an API mailbox. Pass workspace_id to create it in a workspace you own and atomically adopt the domain boundary. Provisions the mailbox on our mail server, publishes DNS when we manage it, and returns the DNS records, mail client settings, and a one-time app password. API: POST /api/emails with kind=hosted.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
nameNoDisplay name for the mailbox
slugYesLocal part, e.g. 'me' for me@mysite.com
domainYesA domain you own, e.g. mysite.com
workspace_idNoWorkspace ID from list_workspaces; owner-only

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.

  1. Changed1 schema field changed
    • addedInput schema / properties / workspace_id
      Added value: +{
+  "description": "Workspace ID from list_workspaces; owner-only",
+  "type": "string"
+}
  2. Added

TDQS

A4.4/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the transparency burden. It discloses side effects ('Provisions the mailbox on our mail server, publishes DNS when we manage it') and states exactly what is returned (DNS records, mail client settings, one-time app password). It lacks mention of costs, failure conditions, or reversibility, but covers the core behavior well.

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

Conciseness5/5

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

The description is two sentences and packs in the core concept, the alternative, a key parameter condition, the provisioning behavior, and the return payload. No filler or redundancy; it's front-loaded.

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?

Despite lacking output schema and annotations, it explains what the tool returns, when to use it, and the prerequisite of owning the domain. It also includes the API route. It doesn't detail post-creation steps or edge cases, but for a creation tool with 4 params, this is solid.

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?

The schema covers all 4 parameters with descriptions, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining the workspace_id semantics ('atomically adopt the domain boundary') and giving a concrete slug example ('me' for me@mysite.com). It also implicitly maps domain/slug to the mailbox address.

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?

The description opens with a specific verb+resource: 'Create a real IMAP/SMTP mailbox on a domain you own.' It explicitly contrasts with 'an API mailbox,' differentiating it from sibling create_mailbox. This makes the tool's purpose unambiguous.

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?

The phrase 'instead of an API mailbox' gives an explicit alternative, and 'on a domain you own' establishes a prerequisite. The condition around workspace_id ('Pass workspace_id to create it in a workspace you own and atomically adopt the domain boundary') clarifies when to include it. However, it doesn't enumerate other sibling alternatives or state when not to use it in more detail.

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

All domani toolsInspect
Try in Browser
RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

A3.5/5.0
Disambiguation3/5

While most tools have distinct purposes, several clusters overlap significantly (e.g., check_email, check_email_deliverability, get_email_deliverability, get_domain_email_status; buy_domain, buy_aftermarket, acquire_domain). The descriptions are detailed and help differentiate, but the sheer number of tools makes it challenging for an agent to select the correct one without careful reading.

Naming Consistency3/5

The dominant pattern is verb_noun with underscores (e.g., create_mailbox, list_domains), but there are notable inconsistencies: destructive actions mix delete/remove/cancel/revoke/unsell, and a few names deviate entirely (search, dns_check, domain_status). The pattern is recognizable but not uniformly applied.

Tool Count1/5

With 122 tools, this vastly exceeds the 50+ threshold for extreme mismatch. Even for a comprehensive domain and email platform, the tool count is overwhelming and will likely hinder agent performance through excessive choice and context bloat.

Completeness4/5

The server covers a wide range of domains, DNS, email, marketplace, negotiations, transfers, webhooks, tokens, and billing. Minor gaps exist, such as no update operation for mail rules, no direct domain deletion, and limited mailbox configuration beyond forwarding and credentials, but most lifecycle workflows are supported.

Resources