Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Cloady

Cloady

Official
by Cloady
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
JavaScript
Local

Read Service Mail Queue

readServiceMailQueue
Read-only

Lists up to 100 messages waiting in Postfix or Stalwart queues, showing sender, recipients, last remote reply, retry time, and attempt count. Requires the developer role because it exposes addresses.

Instructions

Lists up to 100 messages in a Postfix queue, or in Stalwart's through its API, with their sender, recipients, the remote server's last reply, when the server tries again and how many attempts it has made. Requires the developer role, because it shows addresses.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "workspaceSlug": "<workspaceSlug>",
      "appSlug": "<appSlug>",
      "serviceName": "<serviceName>"
    },
    "name": "readServiceMailQueue"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
envNo
regionNo
appSlugYes
serviceNameYes
workspaceSlugYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Addedv0.18.0

TDQS

A3.5/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already establish readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful context beyond them: a 100-message cap, the fact that it reads live queues via two different backends (Postfix vs. Stalwart API), and a role requirement motivated by PII exposure. It does not clarify whether the 100-message cap is truncation without pagination, which is the main remaining behavioral gap.

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?

Two sentences, both densely informative: the enumeration of returned fields is compact and the permission caveat is front-loaded at the end where it belongs. No filler.

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

Completeness3/5

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

With no output schema, the description usefully enumerates the returned fields (sender, recipients, last reply, next retry, attempt count), which makes the result shape predictable. However, five parameters at zero description coverage leave the agent guessing how to target the right workspace/app/service and environment, which is essential for invocation.

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

Parameters2/5

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

Schema description coverage is 0% across five parameters, so the description carries the full burden — and it says nothing about workspaceSlug, appSlug, serviceName, env or region. The only indirect hint is that mail queues belong to a service (Postfix vs. Stalwart), which does not explain how to identify the target queue or what env/region do.

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?

The description names a specific verb (Lists) and resource (messages in a Postfix/Stalwart mail queue), states a hard cap of 100, and enumerates the fields returned. It is clear what the tool does, though it never contrasts itself with nearby siblings like readServiceMail or flushServiceMailQueue.

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?

It provides one real prerequisite — the developer role, justified by exposing addresses — which tells the agent it may fail on insufficient permissions. Beyond that there is no guidance on when to choose this over readServiceMail (mailbox contents) or flushServiceMailQueue (clearing the queue).

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools