Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
addy-mcp

addy-mcp

by Former-Stranger
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Remote

create_recipient

Add a real email address as a new forwarding recipient in addy.io; it receives a verification link and cannot be used until verified.

Instructions

Add a new recipient. addy.io emails it a verification link; it can't be used until verified.

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": {
      "email": "<email>"
    },
    "name": "create_recipient"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
emailYesThe real email address to forward to

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.2

TDQS

A3.6/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations only declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false; the description goes further by disclosing a real side effect (addy.io sends an outbound verification email) and a non-obvious state constraint (the recipient is unusable until verified). That is exactly the kind of context annotations cannot carry, though it omits error/duplicate behavior.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the action and followed by the critical caveat. No filler, nothing repeated from the schema.

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 single-parameter create tool with annotations and no output schema, this covers the essentials: what it makes and the verification prerequisite. It leaves open what the call returns (created record, pending status) and how duplicates are handled, which keeps it from a 5.

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?

Only one parameter exists with 100% schema description coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no syntax, format, or uniqueness constraints for the email beyond what the schema already says.

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 ("Add a new recipient"), so the agent immediately knows this creates a recipient rather than modifying one (update_recipient) or attaching a key (add_recipient_public_key). It does not explicitly name any sibling, so it stops short of a 5.

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?

No when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is given. There is no mention of update_recipient for existing addresses, of what happens if the address already exists, or of the related verification/destination-setting tools, so routing must be inferred from the name alone.

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