list_mailbox_changesIncrementally synchronize a mailbox with an opaque cursor. Call without a cursor before a bounded full snapshot, then replay changes from next_cursor. API: GET /api/email/changes.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | ||
| cursor | No | Opaque next_cursor from the previous response | |
| mailbox_id | Yes | Accessible mailbox ID |
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 disclosure. It explains the opaque cursor behavior, the need to call without a cursor first, and the replay pattern. However, it does not describe the return format or what 'changes' includes, leaving some ambiguity about the response. Still, the core sync behavior is well conveyed.
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 two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, and every word adds value. It efficiently explains the sync protocol and includes the API endpoint without waste.
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 no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the main invocation pattern (cursor sequencing) and the API path. It lacks explicit return value details, but the mention of next_cursor implies response includes it. For a sync tool, this is reasonably complete, though a bit more on response contents would help.
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 coverage is 67% (cursor and mailbox_id have descriptions; limit does not). The description adds understanding of the cursor as opaque and tied to next_cursor, and hints at bounded full snapshot implying limit usage. However, it does not elaborate on limit's range or default, and the added semantics are moderate.
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 states the tool performs incremental mailbox synchronization using an opaque cursor, which is a specific verb+resource combination. It clearly distinguishes itself from siblings like list_email_messages by focusing on change replay rather than simple listing, and the API endpoint is provided.
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 gives clear sequencing instructions: call without a cursor for a bounded full snapshot, then replay changes from next_cursor. It implies the tool is for incremental sync, but does not explicitly mention when not to use it or alternative tools, so it misses the full 'when-not/alternatives' bar.
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.