Daykeeper MCP

Official

by SkyPorch

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

TypeScript

Hybrid

daykeeper_email_channels_get

Read-onlyIdempotent

Inspect an authorized email channel to review required DNS settings; no DNS edits are made.

Instructions

Inspect an authorized email channel and its DNS requirements. Does not edit DNS.

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": {
      "tenantId": "<tenantId>"
    },
    "name": "daykeeper_email_channels_get"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`tenantId`	Yes	Exact Daykeeper resource UUID; access is checked by the API.

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`ok`	Yes
`data`	No
`tool`	Yes
`error`	No
`effect`	Yes
`schemaVersion`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.3.0Oct 7, 2026

TDQS

A3.6/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the fact that the response surfaces DNS requirements and that the channel must be authorized, but says nothing about auth requirements, error behavior, or scope limits.

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?

Two short, front-loaded sentences with no filler; the purpose comes first and the scope caveat second. Every clause carries 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?

With an output schema present, the description need not explain return values, and it still calls out DNS requirements as part of the result. For a single-parameter read tool with full schema coverage, this is largely sufficient.

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?

Only one parameter, and the schema already describes it at 100% coverage including the UUID pattern and the note that access is checked by the API. The description adds nothing about the parameter, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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?

Specific verb ('Inspect') plus a specific resource ('an authorized email channel and its DNS requirements'), which clearly distinguishes it from sibling list/get tools like daykeeper_tenants_list. It stops short of explicitly naming a sibling as the alternative.

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?

'Does not edit DNS' is a useful negative scope hint, but it never states when to prefer this tool over siblings or what prerequisite authorization is required. Usage is only implied.

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

Deploy Server