infomaniak-mcp-agent

infomaniak_create_mailbox

Destructive

Create a mailbox on Infomaniak mail hosting. Two-phase commit: plan to get a token, then apply with token. Password is never exposed in the plan step.

Instructions

Create a new mailbox on a mail hosting. Two-phase commit: plan + token first, then apply with token. The password never appears in the plan output.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`mail_hosting_id`	Yes	Mail hosting ID. Discover via infomaniak_list_mail_hostings.
`mailbox_name`	Yes	Local part of the mailbox WITHOUT the @domain (e.g. 'info', NOT 'info@example.com'). Lowercase alphanumeric with dots, underscores or dashes; 1-64 chars.
`password`	Yes	Initial mailbox password. Infomaniak policy: ≥ 8 chars, at least one lowercase, one uppercase, one digit and one special character. NEVER appears in the plan response — only in the apply call.
`description`	No	Optional free-text description (≤ 255 chars), shown in the manager UI.
`confirmation_token`	No	Token from the prior plan response. Required on the apply phase only.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed5 schema fields changedv0.1.2May 27, 2026

addedInput schema / properties / confirmation_token / description

Added value: +"Token from the prior plan response. Required on the apply phase only."

addedInput schema / properties / description / description

Added value: +"Optional free-text description (≤ 255 chars), shown in the manager UI."

addedInput schema / properties / mail_hosting_id / description

Added value: +"Mail hosting ID. Discover via infomaniak_list_mail_hostings."

addedInput schema / properties / mailbox_name / description

Added value: +"Local part of the mailbox WITHOUT the @domain (e.g. 'info', NOT 'info@example.com'). Lowercase alphanumeric with dots, underscores or dashes; 1-64 chars."

addedInput schema / properties / password / description

Added value: +"Initial mailbox password. Infomaniak policy: ≥ 8 chars, at least one lowercase, one uppercase, one digit and one special character. NEVER appears in the plan response — only in the apply call."

First observedv0.1.0May 27, 2026

TDQS

A4.2/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

The description adds useful context beyond annotations, such as the two-phase commit flow and that the password never appears in the plan output. However, it does not explain the non-obvious destructiveHint=true annotation, and the operation is described as 'create' without discussing potential destructive side effects, leaving a gap in transparency.

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 exactly two sentences, front-loaded with the primary purpose, and includes the workflow and security note without any extraneous words. Every sentence 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?

The tool has a complex two-phase commit behavior, and the description covers it sufficiently. An output schema exists to document return values, and the description explains the core workflow. It could be more complete by mentioning prerequisites like discovering the mail_hosting_id, but that is covered in the schema, so the overall context is adequate.

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 input schema already provides descriptions for all 5 parameters (100% coverage), so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by clarifying the role of confirmation_token in the two-phase process and emphasizing that the password is only used in the apply call, which complements the schema's notes.

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 clearly states 'Create a new mailbox on a mail hosting' with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like infomaniak_create_mailbox_alias and infomaniak_delete_mailbox, and the two-phase commit detail adds additional precision.

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?

The description explicitly describes the two-phase commit process ('plan + token first, then apply with token'), which is a critical usage guideline. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use this tool versus other mailbox-related tools, though the purpose is clear enough to infer proper usage.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Deploy Server