Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
mailflat-mcp

mailflat-mcp

Official
by MailFlat
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Remote

wait_for_otp

Poll an email inbox until a one-time password (OTP) arrives, with optional timeout. Returns the OTP code and associated email.

Instructions

Poll the inbox until an OTP code arrives (or timeout). Returns {otp_code, email}.

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": {
      "address": "<address>"
    },
    "name": "wait_for_otp"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
addressYes
timeoutNo

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.9.0

TDQS

A3.6/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

The description communicates that the tool polls or blocks until an OTP arrives or a timeout occurs, and it gives the return shape. With no annotations available, this carries more weight; however, it leaves the timeout failure behavior unspecified and does not clarify whether the OTP email is merely read or consumed.

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?

The description is two short sentences with no filler. It front-loads the core polling action and then states the return format, leaving no wasted words.

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 low-complexity tool, the description is minimally sufficient: it states when to call it, what happens, and what it returns. But because there are no annotations, no output schema, and no parameter descriptions, the inability to describe the address and timeout failure behavior is a notable gap.

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

Parameters2/5

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

The schema descriptions the required address parameter are not explained, nor is the timeout parameter's unit or exact behavior. The description only mentions 'timeout' loosely without adding what an agent needs to fill the required field correctly.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description states a specific operation — polling the inbox until an OTP code arrives — and specifies the returned payload. It clearly distinguishes itself from generic sibling tools like wait_for_message through its OTP-specific behavior.

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?

The intended context is implied: use this when expecting an OTP in an inbox. However, the description does not explicitly state when to prefer this over wait_for_message or how it relates to read_messages, so guidance is only implied rather than explicit.

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