Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
mx-route-mcp

mx-route-mcp

by MauiGrowth
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Local

Update email account

update_email_account
DestructiveIdempotent

Update a mailbox's password, storage quota, or daily send limit. Provide at least one value; omitted fields stay unchanged, and a new password locks out the old one.

Instructions

Changes a mailbox's password, quota or daily send limit. Provide at least one of password, quota, limit; omitted fields stay unchanged. Changing the password locks out anyone using the old one. Destructive: confirm with the user before calling.

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": {
      "domain": "<domain>",
      "username": "<username>"
    },
    "name": "update_email_account"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
limitNoNew daily send limit
quotaNoNew storage quota in MB
domainYesDomain name on the MXroute account, e.g. example.com
passwordNoNew password, 8-72 characters; omit to keep the current one
usernameYesExisting mailbox name (the part before the @, without the domain)

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

A4.2/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavior beyond the annotations: 'Changing the password locks out anyone using the old one' is a real side effect an agent must know, plus the partial-update semantics.

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?

Three tight sentences, each earning its place: scope, input constraint, and the destructive warning. The consequence of the password change and the confirmation instruction are front-loaded where the agent will see them.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness5/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a mutation tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, input constraint, partial-update behavior, and the key destructive side effect, and annotations cover the safety profile. An agent has everything needed to call it correctly.

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?

Schema coverage is 100%, so per-parameter meaning is already documented, giving a baseline of 3. The description adds the important at-least-one-of constraint and the 'omitted fields stay unchanged' behavior, neither of which is expressible in the given schema (which only marks domain/username as required).

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 (Changes) plus the exact mutable fields (password, quota, daily send limit) of a mailbox, which functionally distinguishes it from create_email_account, get_email_account, and delete_email_account. It does not name a sibling explicitly, so it falls short of the 5 bar.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Gives concrete usage conditions: at least one of password/quota/limit must be supplied, omitted fields stay unchanged, and 'confirm with the user before calling' before a destructive change. There is no explicit comparison to sibling tools, so no exclusions or alternatives are stated.

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