list_mailbox_credentialsList the app passwords for a hosted mailbox (labels + metadata; secrets are shown only once at creation). API: GET /api/emails/{address}/credentials.
| 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?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It goes beyond the schema by disclosing that secrets are shown only once at creation, which is important behavioral context for users expecting to retrieve password values. However, it does not mention permissions, pagination, or error behavior.
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 action and resource, and includes a helpful note about secret visibility plus the API endpoint. Every sentence earns its place with no wasted words.
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 listing tool with two parameters and no output schema, the description is reasonably complete. It explains return scope (labels + metadata) and the secret-once limitation. It lacks explicit return format or field enumeration, but the absence of an output schema makes the description adequately informative for this level of complexity.
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%, with clear descriptions for both 'domain' and 'slug'. The description adds minimal parameter-level detail beyond the schema; it reframes them as a hosted mailbox address but does not explain format or constraints beyond what the schema already provides.
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 uses a specific verb ('List') and resource ('app passwords for a hosted mailbox'), clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like create_mailbox_credential and revoke_mailbox_credential. It also specifies what is returned (labels + metadata), adding valuable scope.
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 clearly implies a read-only listing operation for mailbox credentials, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention exclusions such as 'use revoke_mailbox_credential to remove credentials'. Usage context is implicit but not explicitly contrasted with siblings.
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.