revoke_mailbox_credentialRevoke an app password on a hosted mailbox. Any mail client using it stops connecting. API: DELETE /api/emails/{address}/credentials/{id}.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| slug | Yes | Hosted mailbox slug | |
| domain | Yes | Hosted mailbox domain | |
| credential_id | Yes | App password id from list_mailbox_credentials |
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, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It explicitly states that 'any mail client using it stops connecting', which is a key consequence. The DELETE method implies irreversibility, and this context goes beyond the bare minimum.
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 three concise sentences with no filler. It leads with the purpose, provides the critical impact, and ends with the API reference. Every sentence earns its place.
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?
The tool is simple and the description covers the action and effect. The mapping from domain/slug to the {address} in the endpoint is not explicitly explained, but the schema hints make it inferable. This is nearly complete for a straightforward revoke 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 already has 100% coverage with descriptions for all three parameters. The description adds only the API endpoint pattern, which does not meaningfully enhance parameter understanding beyond what the schema provides. Baseline of 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 uses the specific verb 'Revoke' and identifies the resource as 'an app password on a hosted mailbox'. It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like revoke_token and create_mailbox_credential by focusing on the exact object and action.
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 usage is implied by the action itself, but the description does not explicitly state when to use this tool vs alternatives such as revoke_token, nor does it mention prerequisites like obtaining the credential ID via list_mailbox_credentials. No exclusions or alternative guidance is provided.
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.