list_email_foldersList canonical mailbox folders, virtual views, server-derived total/unread counts, and backend capabilities. API: GET /api/emails/{address}/folders.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| slug | Yes | Mailbox slug | |
| domain | Yes | 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?
The description discloses the HTTP method (GET) and the data returned, including counts and capabilities, which helps infer a read-only operation. However, it does not explicitly state authentication requirements, rate limits, or other behavioral constraints, and there are no annotations to supplement this.
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 concise, consisting of two sentences: a clear summary of what the tool does and the API endpoint. Every word earns its place, and the primary action is front-loaded.
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?
Given the absence of an output schema and annotations, the description does a good job by enumerating the response categories (folders, views, counts, capabilities). It could be enhanced by specifying the response shape or any pagination behavior, but for a simple list tool it is 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?
Both parameters have descriptions in the input schema (100% coverage), so the schema already documents 'domain' and 'slug'. The tool description does not add any additional meaning or context about how these parameters are used, beyond the schema.
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 explicitly states the tool 'List canonical mailbox folders, virtual views, server-derived total/unread counts, and backend capabilities,' which is a specific verb+resource with clear scope. The API endpoint is included, and it is clearly distinguishable from sibling tools like list_email_messages.
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?
No explicit guidance is given about when to use this tool over alternatives. The usage is implied by the name and the description of listing folders, but there are no exclusions or references to sibling tools for comparison.
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.