Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
addy-mcp

addy-mcp

by Former-Stranger
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Remote

resend_recipient_verification

Resend a verification email to an unverified addy.io recipient by recipient ID so they can complete account verification.

Instructions

Resend the verification email for an unverified recipient.

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>"
    },
    "name": "resend_recipient_verification"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
recipient_idYesThe id (UUID) of the item

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.2

TDQS

A3.6/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare non-read-only, non-destructive, and open-world behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the meaningful precondition that the recipient must be unverified, but says nothing about rate limits, whether a previous token is invalidated, or the error behavior for already-verified recipients.

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 short sentence with the action front-loaded and zero filler; every word earns its place.

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, non-destructive side-effect tool with annotations and full schema coverage, this is nearly complete. Only minor gaps remain: failure behavior when the recipient is already verified and the shape of the response.

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 coverage is 100% and the single recipient_id parameter is documented in the schema, so the description need not repeat it. It adds no meaning beyond the schema, which is the expected baseline here.

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: 'Resend the verification email.' The scope qualifier 'for an unverified recipient' narrows it usefully, and it is distinguishable from siblings such as resend_failed_delivery, though the description does not explicitly say so.

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?

Implies the when-to-use case via the 'unverified recipient' precondition, but gives no explicit guidance on when not to use it, what happens if the recipient is already verified, or which sibling to prefer for other resend scenarios.

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