Skip to main content
Glama

domani

by run.domani

Set Email Webhook

set_email_webhook

Set or remove the inbound webhook URL for a mailbox. Incoming emails are signed, durable, and retried up to three times. A non-secret HTTPS URL may be configured here; never request or pass Authorization or X-API-Key values through chat/MCP—operators use the CLI environment-variable options. Set the URL to null to remove. API: PUT /api/emails/{address}/webhook or DELETE /api/emails/{address}/webhook.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
slugYesMailbox slug
domainYesMailbox domain
headersNoOptional auth headers for trusted non-model clients. Never request or pass values through model context. Only Authorization and X-API-Key are accepted; send {} to clear them.
webhook_urlYesHTTPS webhook URL, or null to remove

Schema Changelog

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

  1. Changed1 schema field changed
    • changedInput schema / properties / headers / description
      Previous value: -"Optional auth headers. Only Authorization and X-API-Key are accepted; send {} to clear them."New value: +"Optional auth headers for trusted non-model clients. Never request or pass values through model context. Only Authorization and X-API-Key are accepted; send {} to clear them."
  2. Changed1 schema field changed
    • addedInput schema / properties / headers
      Added value: +{
+  "additionalProperties": {
+    "type": "string"
+  },
+  "description": "Optional auth headers. Only Authorization and X-API-Key are accepted; send {} to clear them.",
+  "propertyNames": {
+    "type": "string"
+  },
+  "type": "object"
+}
  3. First observed

TDQS

A4.4/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses meaningful behavior: incoming emails are signed, durable, and retried up to three times, and setting webhook_url to null removes the webhook. It also warns that HTTPS URLs configured here must be non-secret, which goes beyond the schema. The only missing detail is the successful response shape, but that is not critical for this operation.

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 compact and front-loaded with the core action. Every sentence contributes value: what the tool does, how deliveries behave, the security constraint, the removal behavior, and the corresponding API operation. There is no filler or repetition of schema information.

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 four-parameter operation with no output schema, the description is complete enough: it covers the main operation, removal behavior, security constraints, and delivery semantics. The schema already documents parameter meanings, so the description does not need to repeat them. It would only be slightly improved by naming sibling alternatives for testing or rotating webhook secrets.

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

Parameters4/5

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

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds valuable meaning beyond the schema. It clarifies that webhook_url must be an HTTPS, non-secret URL, explicitly confirms null means removal, and warns that header-like secrets must not pass through model context. This directly enriches how an agent should interpret webhook_url and headers.

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 starts with a precise action and resource: 'Set or remove the inbound webhook URL for a mailbox.' It also names the underlying API endpoints (PUT and DELETE /api/emails/{address}/webhook), which removes ambiguity. The mailbox-specific wording differentiates it from generic sibling tools like create_webhook or delete_webhook without needing to open their schemas.

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 gives clear usage context: use it to set or remove a mailbox's inbound webhook URL, with 'Set the URL to null to remove' as a concrete removal rule. It also provides an explicit security instruction: never request or pass Authorization or X-API-Key values through chat or MCP context, and instead use the CLI environment-variable options. It does not explicitly discuss alternatives like test_email_webhook or rotate_email_webhook_secret, but the core usage is clear.

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