Skip to main content
Glama
addy-mcp

addy-mcp

add_recipient_public_key

Idempotent

Add an ASCII-armored public GPG/OpenPGP key to a recipient so forwarded mail can be encrypted.

Instructions

Add a public GPG key to a recipient so forwarded mail can be encrypted.

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": {
      "recipient_id": "<recipient_id>",
      "key_data": "<key_data>"
    },
    "name": "add_recipient_public_key"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
key_dataYesASCII-armored public GPG/OpenPGP key
recipient_idYesThe id (UUID) of the item

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.2

TDQS

A3.7/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare the key behavioral traits: readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true, openWorldHint=true. The description adds the effect-level context that the key enables encryption of forwarded mail, but does not answer the main open behavioral question for a key-add operation: whether an existing key is replaced or appended, and whether it applies to forwarded mail only.

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

Conciseness4/5

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

One tight sentence with the action front-loaded and the purpose trailing. Nothing is wasted, though it is thin enough that a little more detail could be carried without bloat.

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 two-parameter, non-destructive, idempotent tool with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description covers what the tool does and why. The main residual gap is the replace-vs-append semantics of key_data, which matters for correct invocation but is arguably minor given the idempotent hint.

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 description coverage is 100% and both parameters are documented (recipient_id as the item UUID, key_data as an ASCII-armored public key), so the baseline is 3. The description adds no format, validation, or constraint detail beyond the schema.

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?

States a specific verb (add) and resource (a public GPG key on a recipient) and adds the operational rationale (so forwarded mail can be encrypted), which lets an agent distinguish it from the sibling remove_recipient_public_key without opening either schema.

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?

The 'so forwarded mail can be encrypted' clause implies the scenario in which this is needed, but there is no explicit when-to-use or when-not guidance, no mention of prerequisites (e.g. the recipient must exist or be verified forwarded), and no pointer to alternatives.

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