create_mailbox_credentialCreate an app password for a hosted mailbox, used as the password in a mail client. The secret is returned once - store it. API: POST /api/emails/{address}/credentials.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| slug | Yes | Hosted mailbox slug | |
| label | No | Label to identify this app password, e.g. 'Laptop Mail' | |
| domain | Yes | Hosted mailbox domain |
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 takes on the transparency burden. It discloses a crucial behavioral trait: 'The secret is returned once - store it,' which alerts the agent to capture the secret immediately. It also includes the API endpoint. However, it omits other details like permission requirements or limits, but the one-time secret is a key disclosure.
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 extremely concise: two sentences plus an API path. The first sentence states the primary action, the second provides a critical caveat, and the API reference is a compact technical detail. No wasted words; it is front-loaded and well-structured.
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 no output schema, the description covers the essential context: what it does, the one-time secret behavior, and the API endpoint. It does not detail the response format, but the description of the secret being returned implies it. The sibling context and schema fill in the remaining gaps, making this sufficiently complete.
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?
Schema description coverage is 100%, meaning all parameters are already described: slug ('Hosted mailbox slug'), label ('Label to identify this app password'), and domain ('Hosted mailbox domain'). The description adds no additional parameter-specific semantics beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.
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 an app password for a hosted mailbox, used as the password in a mail client.' This specific verb+resource combination distinguishes it from siblings like create_mailbox (which likely creates a mailbox account) and list_mailbox_credentials (which lists credentials). The title 'Create App Password' further reinforces the purpose.
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 implies when to use this tool: when you need an app password for a mail client to access a hosted mailbox. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use, but the wording 'used as the password in a mail client' provides clear context. The sibling tool list also helps differentiate, but explicit exclusion is absent.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
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.
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.
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.
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.