get_mailbox_client_settingsGet IMAP/SMTP settings for a hosted mailbox to configure a mail client (Apple Mail, Thunderbird). Username is the full address; password is an app password. API: GET /api/emails/{address}/client-settings.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| slug | Yes | Hosted mailbox slug | |
| 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 provided, the description carries the burden of disclosing behavior. It states that 'Username is the full address; password is an app password', which is critical behavioral context for a mail client setup. It also reveals the API endpoint. However, it does not mention response structure or error cases, but the 'Get' verb implies a read-only operation.
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 consists of three concise sentences, each adding unique value: purpose, credential format, and API endpoint. No unnecessary filler. It is well-structured and front-loaded with the primary action.
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 getter with two parameters and no output schema, the description provides sufficient context. It explains the purpose, the credential requirements, and the API path. It could mention what fields are returned (e.g., server, ports), but the tool name and 'client-settings' resource imply this. The description is complete enough for an agent to invoke it correctly.
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?
The input schema already describes both parameters ('Hosted mailbox slug' and 'Hosted mailbox domain') with 100% coverage, so the description adds minimal parameter-specific meaning. The only added detail is the note about the address format, but that applies to the mailbox rather than the slug/domain parameters directly. Baseline 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 tool's function: 'Get IMAP/SMTP settings for a hosted mailbox to configure a mail client'. It uses a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('client settings'), and distinguishes it from sibling tools by focusing on mail client configuration. The explicit API endpoint 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 provides clear usage context: 'to configure a mail client (Apple Mail, Thunderbird)'. It also gives essential setup details (username = full address, password = app password). While it doesn't explicitly name alternative tools or situations to avoid, the use case is specific enough to guide selection among the many sibling tools.
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.