Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
addy-mcp

addy-mcp

by Former-Stranger
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Remote

get_alias

Read-only

Retrieve a single email alias by its UUID, returning its recipients, labels, and usage statistics. Use it to inspect alias details for management or auditing.

Instructions

Get a single alias, including its recipients, labels and statistics.

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_id": "<alias_id>"
    },
    "name": "get_alias"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
alias_idYesThe id (UUID) of the item

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 already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful payload context that no output schema supplies: the response includes recipients, labels and statistics, which tells the agent this is a rich detail fetch rather than a bare lookup.

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?

One front-loaded sentence with no filler; the resource is named first and the payload contents follow immediately. Nothing is repeated or wasted.

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 simple single-parameter read tool with full schema coverage and safety annotations, the description covers what is returned, which is the main gap left by the absence of an output schema. Minor omissions remain, such as behavior when the alias_id does not exist or whether statistics are always included.

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?

There is a single parameter with 100% schema description coverage, which already documents alias_id as the item's UUID. The description adds no further meaning about the identifier, so the schema-coverage baseline of 3 applies.

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?

"Get a single alias" states a specific verb and resource, and the clause about recipients, labels and statistics clarifies what a retrieved alias contains, distinguishing it from create_alias/update_alias/delete_alias and from get_recipient or get_label. It does not explicitly name a sibling it competes with, so it falls just short of the top score.

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 description contains no when-to-use guidance, prerequisites, or exclusions. An agent can infer that a known alias_id is needed to fetch that one alias, but nothing tells it why to choose this over a bulk or list-style sibling.

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