remove_mailbox_aliasRemove an alias address from a mailbox. Email to that address stops being delivered. API: DELETE /api/emails/{address}/aliases/{alias}.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| slug | Yes | Mailbox slug | |
| alias | Yes | Alias address to remove - a bare slug or full address | |
| 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?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full disclosure burden. It discloses the key behavioral consequence—delivery stops—and even gives the exact API endpoint. However, it omits other behavioral traits such as required permissions, reversibility, or edge-case behavior (e.g., removing a non-existent alias or the last alias), leaving some ambiguity.
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 exceptionally concise: two sentences. The first states the action and its effect, and the second adds the API endpoint. There is no redundant or filler content.
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 removal tool with fully described parameters and no output schema, the description covers the core behavior and endpoint. It is slightly incomplete regarding prerequisites or additional side effects, but overall it provides sufficient context for a single-purpose operation.
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 has 100% coverage: each parameter is described ('Mailbox slug', 'Alias address to remove - a bare slug or full address', 'Mailbox domain'). The description adds no additional parameter-level context, so it meets the baseline but does not exceed it.
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 verb 'remove' and the resource 'alias address from a mailbox', and goes further to explain the direct consequence: 'Email to that address stops being delivered.' This distinguishes it well from sibling tools like add_mailbox_alias and list_mailbox_aliases.
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 context that this tool is used for removing aliases and that delivery will cease, implying when to use it. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusion conditions, though the sibling tool set makes the distinction obvious.
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.