Skip to main content
Glama

domani

by run.domani

Set Email Forward

set_email_forward

Configure inbound handling for a mailbox: forward incoming emails to another address (in addition to storing) and/or drop spam-flagged messages. Set forward_to to null to remove forwarding. API: PATCH /api/emails/{address}.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
slugYesMailbox slug
domainYesMailbox domain
drop_spamNoIf true, spam-flagged inbound is dropped (not stored or webhooked)
forward_toNoEmail address to forward to, or null to remove

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.

  1. Changed2 schema fields changed
    • addedInput schema / properties / drop_spam
      Added value: +{
+  "description": "If true, spam-flagged inbound is dropped (not stored or webhooked)",
+  "type": "boolean"
+}
    • changedInput schema / required
      Previous value: -[
-  "domain",
-  "slug",
-  "forward_to"
-]New value: +[
+  "domain",
+  "slug"
+]
  2. First observed

TDQS

A4.2/5.0
Behavior4/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of disclosure. It clearly states that forwarding is 'in addition to storing' and that setting forward_to to null removes forwarding, which are key behavioral details. It also gives the API endpoint. It doesn't mention permissions or the ordering of forwarding vs. spam filtering, but the core behaviors are transparent.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is two sentences, front-loaded with the purpose, and includes the API endpoint as an efficient extra. No filler or redundancy.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a moderate-complexity tool with no annotations or output schema, the description covers the primary purpose, both configuration actions, and the removal mechanism. It doesn't describe the combined effect of setting both flags or the response shape, but the tool is simple enough that the description is largely complete.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100% with detailed descriptions for all four parameters. The description reinforces the forward_to null behavior but adds no new semantic meaning beyond what the schema already provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description uses 'Configure inbound handling for a mailbox' as a clear verb+resource, then specifies two distinct behaviors (forwarding and spam dropping). This makes it easy to distinguish from sibling tools like forward_message (which forwards individual messages) and set_catch_all (which handles catch-all routing).

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description provides clear context on what the tool does and the two configuration options, making usage intent obvious. However, it doesn't explicitly mention when to use this over alternatives (e.g., forward_message for per-message forwarding), so it lacks explicit exclusions.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

All domani toolsInspect
Try in Browser
RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

A3.5/5.0
Disambiguation3/5

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.

Naming Consistency3/5

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.

Tool Count1/5

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.

Completeness4/5

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.

Resources