Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
addy-mcp

addy-mcp

by Former-Stranger
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Remote

bulk_set_alias_recipients

Idempotent

Replace forwarding recipients for up to 25 aliases at once by providing alias and recipient IDs, with optional family member delivery and reply permissions.

Instructions

Replace the recipients of up to 25 aliases at once.

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": {
      "alias_ids": "<alias_ids>",
      "recipient_ids": "<recipient_ids>"
    },
    "name": "bulk_set_alias_recipients"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
alias_idsYesAlias ids (max 25)
recipient_idsYesRecipients every alias should forward to
family_member_idsNoDuo/Family plan member user ids to also deliver to
family_reply_send_idsNoSubset of family_member_ids allowed to reply/send

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.2

TDQS

B3.2/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare the operation non-readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and open-world, so safety posture is covered. The description's main contribution is the word 'Replace', which signals overwrite rather than additive semantics, though it does not say what happens to prior recipients or whether all aliases in the batch are updated atomically on partial failure. The '25' cap largely restates schema maxItems.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler, making the verb, resource and batch bound immediately visible. Some structure is lost by omitting any statement of the overwrite consequence or scoping conditions.

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?

For a bulk mutation with no output schema and two optional family-delivery parameters, the description is thin: it does not describe the overwrite behavior, all-or-nothing semantics, or how family reply-send subsets are handled. Rich schema descriptions compensate for the parameter gap, leaving it minimally viable rather than 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 description coverage is 100%, so all four parameters, including the optional family_member_ids and family_reply_send_ids, are already documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond repeating the 25-item batch limit.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Replace the recipients of ... aliases') plus the batch scope ('up to 25 ... at once'), which separates it in kind from the singular set_alias_recipients. It never names the single-alias alternative explicitly, so an agent must infer the sibling boundary from scope wording alone.

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

Usage Guidelines2/5

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

The phrase 'at once' implies a batch workflow, but there is no explicit when-to-use versus set_alias_recipients, and no guidance on when replacing is preferable to adding recipients. No prerequisites, permissions, or exclusions are given despite the sibling set containing an almost identically named single-alias tool.

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