Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
LeadAce

LeadAce

by aitit-inc
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

get_mailbox_health

Check a project's mailbox health: view warmup stage, daily email cap, used/remaining sends, pause state, and 30-day bounce rate.

Instructions

Warmup and daily-cap state of the mailbox this project sends from (assigned custom mailbox, else connected Gmail). This per-mailbox email cap is separate from the plan/billing outreach quota — email sends only, resets at UTC midnight. Returns the mailbox email, warmup ramp (week X of N) or fixed cap override, today's cap/used/remaining, any pause, and a trailing 30-day bounceRate (threaded-only lower bound). Returns a no-mailbox state when the project has no assigned mailbox and no linked Gmail.

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": {
      "projectId": "<projectId>"
    },
    "name": "get_mailbox_health"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
projectIdYesProject name or ID

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.7.54

TDQS

A4.3/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It is transparent about what the tool returns (mailbox email, warmup ramp, cap, used, remaining, pause, bounce rate), the reset time (UTC midnight), the scope (email sends only), and the edge case of a no-mailbox state. It also clarifies the bounce rate is a 'threaded-only lower bound', which is a useful nuance. It doesn't explicitly state read-only, but the 'get' nature implies it, and no side effects are mentioned.

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 a single, well-structured paragraph that front-loads the primary purpose and then enumerates the return fields. It is concise but information-dense, covering all necessary details without redundancy. Every sentence adds value, and the length is appropriate for the complexity of the tool.

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?

Since there is no output schema, the description must explain the return values, and it does so thoroughly: mailbox email, warmup ramp or fixed cap override, today's cap/used/remaining, pause status, and 30-day bounce rate, plus the no-mailbox state. It also provides relevant context like reset timing and the separate quota distinction, making it fully self-sufficient for an agent to understand expected outputs and behavior.

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?

The input schema fully documents the single parameter projectId with a clear description ('Project name or ID'). Since schema description coverage is 100%, the baseline is 3. The tool description does not add any additional meaning to the parameter itself, but it doesn't need to because the schema covers it; the description focuses on the return value context 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 description clearly states the tool retrieves mailbox health state, listing specific data points like warmup ramp, daily cap, used/remaining, bounce rate. It uses a specific verb 'get' with a well-defined resource 'mailbox health', and it implicitly distinguishes itself from sibling tools like get_gmail_status and get_lever_state by focusing on per-mailbox sending limits.

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 provides context on when to use the tool by explaining it covers the mailbox used for sending, and explicitly notes the daily cap is separate from the plan/billing outreach quota, which helps avoid confusion with other quota-related tools. However, it doesn't explicitly name alternative tools or state dedicated 'when to use' versus 'when not to use' guidance.

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