Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
addy-mcp

addy-mcp

by Former-Stranger
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Remote

list_usernames

Read-only

Retrieve every username on an addy.io account to see the subdomains available for on-the-fly alias creation.

Instructions

List the account's usernames (each gives a subdomain like name.anonaddy.com for on-the-fly aliases).

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "list_usernames"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

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 readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful domain semantics about subdomains, but says nothing about result volume, ordering, pagination, or whether it includes deleted usernames — modest added value beyond the annotations.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with the resource first and a compact parenthetical that explains the practical meaning of a username. No filler, nothing that could be cut without losing information.

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 zero-parameter read-only list tool with no output schema, the description covers what is returned at a conceptual level and why it matters. Minor gap: it does not indicate whether results are complete or paginated, which an agent may want to know before calling.

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

Parameters4/5

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

The tool takes zero parameters, so per the baseline this scores a 4. There is nothing parameter-related the description needs to compensate for, and the schema makes the no-argument nature explicit.

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 ('List the account's usernames') and adds explanatory context about what a username represents (a subdomain like name.anonaddy.com used for on-the-fly aliases). It does not explicitly distinguish itself from create_username/delete_username, but the read-only listing intent is unambiguous.

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?

Usage is only implied: an agent can infer this is the way to enumerate all usernames. There is no explicit guidance about when to prefer it over alternatives (e.g., get_alias or list_aliases for alias-level detail) and no mention of prerequisites such as authentication or scope.

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