Skip to main content
Glama

domani

by run.domani

Create Mailbox

create_mailbox

Create an email address. Specify slug (required) and optionally domain. Pass workspace_id to create it inside a workspace you own; custom-domain creation atomically adopts the domain and all unscoped sibling mailboxes so a domain is never split. Custom-domain capacity follows the active account or workspace plan. For imported domains (external registrar): returns DNS records to add manually at your registrar. For domani.run: omit domain; each account has one free mailbox. Pass force=true to override an existing email provider (Google Workspace, etc.). API: POST /api/emails with {address}.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
nameNoDisplay name for outbound emails, e.g. 'John Doe'. Shows as 'John Doe <slug@domain>' in recipients' inboxes
slugYesLocal part of the email address, e.g. 'hello' for hello@mysite.com
forceNoOverride existing MX records (e.g. Google Workspace). Default: false
domainNoDomain for the mailbox. Omit for domani.run
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. First observed

TDQS

A4.1/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

No annotations are present, and the description disclosures exactly that kind of side-effect an agent needs: 'atomically adoptes the domain and all unscoped sibling sources so the domain is never split', 'returns DNS records to manually add', and 'force=true overrides an existing email provider'. This is rich, non-obvious behavior conveyed in plain conditionals.

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?

Opens with the crisp 'Create an email address', and the remaining sentences are needed for the atomic-domain and DNS-return behavior. At ~7 sentences this is dense but the trailing 'API: POST...' line adds marginal invocation value and pushes it beyond the width of a 5.

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 5-parameter, 0-annotation, no-output-schema tool, the description covers the critical inputs and side effects nearly fully and distinguishes optional flows (domani.run, imported domains, force). The gaps: explicit differentiation from 'create_health_mailbox' and the shape of the non-DNS success return.

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 coverage is 100% — slug/domain/workspace_id/name/force all carry descriptions. The description's parameter-level notes mirror the schema (domain omitted for domani.run, workspace is owner-only) rather than adding new semantics to input meanings. Baseline 3 is therefore correct.

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 the purpose precisely — 'Create an email address' — and the scope-to-domain invariants (slug, domain, workspace, return of DNS records). Sibling differentiation is implicit (domani.run vs custom vs imported) but 'create_hosted_mailbox' is not named or distinguished, so it stops short of a 5.

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?

Clear conditional context: pass workspace_id only for owned workspaces, omit domain for domani.run, pass force=true only to override an existing provider — each path is mapped to behavior. It does not rule out or name siblings in the same workflow, so exclusions are absent.

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