postsleuth

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

postfix_queue_summary

Read-only

Summarise the Postfix queue (postqueue -j): counts per queue, top recipient and sender domains, delay reasons grouped and classified with hints, oldest message.

Instructions

Summarise the Postfix queue (postqueue -j): counts per queue, top recipient and sender domains, delay reasons grouped and classified with hints, oldest message.

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "postfix_queue_summary"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`top`	No	max entries per list (default 10)
`queue`	No	only this queue: active, deferred, hold, incoming, maildrop or corrupt (default all)

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`bytes`	Yes
`reasons`	Yes
`by_queue`	Yes
`messages`	Yes
`oldest_age`	No
`recipients`	Yes
`forced_expire`	Yes
`oldest_queue_id`	No
`oldest_age_seconds`	No
`top_sender_domains`	Yes
`top_recipient_domains`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed2 schema fields changedv0.2.1Oct 22, 2026
- addedOutput schema / properties / reasons / items / properties / playbook
```
Added value: +{
+  "type": "string"
+}
```
- addedOutput schema / properties / reasons / items / properties / provider
```
Added value: +{
+  "type": "string"
+}
```
First observedv0.1.0Oct 15, 2026

TDQS

A3.6/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already establish readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful behavioral context that this is derived from postqueue -j and that delay reasons come pre-grouped with hints, but it says nothing about cost, failure when the queue is unavailable, or why idempotentHint is false for a read.

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?

A single dense sentence, front-loaded with the verb and resource, followed by the concrete outputs. Every clause carries information; nothing is redundant with the title or restates the name.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and the description covers inputs-implied scope and the data source. The remaining gap is routing: with ten siblings, several queue-related, the definition doesn't state where this fits versus postfix_queue_list or postfix_queue_shape.

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%, so both parameters (top, queue) are already fully documented in the schema; baseline 3 applies. The description only incidentally gestures at them ("counts per queue", "top recipient and sender domains") and adds no syntax, enum values, or default behavior beyond what the schema states.

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

Purpose4/5

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

Specific verb+resource ("Summarise the Postfix queue") with the underlying source (postqueue -j) and an enumeration of the aggregates returned: per-queue counts, top sender/recipient domains, grouped delay reasons, oldest message. It does not, however, contrast itself with close siblings like postfix_queue_list or postfix_queue_shape, which an agent will need to disambiguate.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

Usage is only implied: an agent can infer this is the at-a-glance overview versus the list/shape/trace siblings, but the description never says when to pick it, when not to, or which sibling to use instead. No prerequisites or exclusions are given.

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

Deploy Server