Skip to main content
Glama

infrastructure_status

Read-only

Check warmup status and mailbox health to know send capacity. Identify required actions and next steps to keep your cold-email infrastructure ready.

Instructions

Warmup + provisioning progress per mailbox. New mailboxes are ramp-limited server-side: 5 sends/day week 1 rising to 40/day after 4 weeks; current dailyCap for each mailbox is in the response below — ramp caps permit CAPPED sending from day 1, never zero until fully warmed. Returns { domains, mailboxes, sendReady, mailboxHealth[], messages[], nextSteps }; each mailbox: warmupDay, dailyCap, sentToday, sendReady, delivStatus (healthy/throttled/paused), complaint/bounce/softBounce rates (first-party measured), vendorReputationScore + vendorPlacementRate (VENDOR-REPORTED, not first-party measurements — the control loop uses local signals only; BOTH ARE null whenever the provider does not report them, which is the normal case today, so treat null as 'not measured' and never as zero), lastPolledAt. Per-mailbox sendReady is a FULLY-RAMPED flag, NOT a send gate — a mailbox below full ramp still sends, capped at its own dailyCap; sendReady only says warmup has finished, so read dailyCap/sentToday for actual send capacity, never sendReady alone. The top-level sendReady is the AND across ALL mailboxes (true only once every one has finished ramping) — for whether THIS mailbox can send right now, the per-mailbox flag next to it is the one that matters, not the top-level one. Vendor-pool warmup (the underlying reputation-building the provider runs) is FEED-INVISIBLE by design: nothing in this response surfaces the vendor's own warmup internals — dailyCap/warmupDay/sendReady here are this platform's own ramp schedule, computed independently of whatever the vendor is doing in its pool, so do not expect a vendor-side warmup event to show up here. messages[] surfaces system notices this account should act on (e.g. a setup step that needs a retry, a mailbox credential that just went live) — each has kind, severity ('info' = resolves on its own | 'action_required' = nothing progresses until you act, and acting works | 'operator_pending' = the platform has stopped and nothing you change will restart it, but an operator can clear the blocker and then retrying the SAME call with the SAME idempotency key completes it — keep your inputs as they are and do not give up | 'terminal' = the platform has STOPPED, retrying will never help and only a human can move it — the actionHint names contact_operator), body, actionHint (structured — e.g. which tool + idempotencyKey to retry with), createdAt; poll this alongside the mailbox fields — capped at the newest 5 (operator replies sort first, so system churn cannot evict one, but a 6th DISTINCT unacked message of either kind can still fall off this preview; use list_messages for the complete, paginated history). Reading them here does NOT mark them read — only an explicit ack_message call sets readAt. Unacked operator messages sort first here, then system notices newest-first, so a human reply is never pushed out of the 5 by system churn; list_messages is the full paginated surface. nextSteps names what this account should do next — see setup_infrastructure's description for the discriminated shape. Use account/metrics for account-wide rollups.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

A4.8/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Beyond the readOnlyHint annotation, it discloses critical behavioral details: sendReady is not a send gate, top-level sendReady is an AND across mailboxes, vendor-reported scores can be null and are not first-party, vendor-pool warmup is invisible, and reading messages here does not mark them read. It also explains severity semantics and retry outcomes.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is information-dense and front-loaded, with nearly every sentence contributing necessary behavioral context. It loses one point because the message-ordering and 5-message cap points are repeated, making the text more verbose and harder to scan than needed.

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?

With no output schema, the description carries the full burden of explaining return values, and it does so thoroughly: mailbox fields, severity levels, nextSteps pointer, message-capping behavior, and retry semantics. It is complete for an agent to understand what this call returns and how to act on it.

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 tool has zero parameters and the schema covers that completely, so the description correctly spends no effort on parameter documentation. For a 0-parameter tool, the baseline is 4, and the description enriches the output semantics that matter instead.

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 opening line states a specific purpose: exposing warmup and provisioning progress per mailbox. It enumerates the exact returned fields and distinguishes itself from account-level rollups and message history tools.

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

Usage Guidelines5/5

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

The description explicitly names alternatives and when to use them: list_messages for full history, ack_message for marking messages read, account/metrics for account-wide rollups, and setup_infrastructure for the nextSteps shape. It also directs when to poll this tool alongside mailbox fields.

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

Latest Blog Posts

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/YS-projectcalc/agent-cold-email'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server