mxroute-mcp

Get Email Account

get_email_account

Read-onlyIdempotent

Retrieves mailbox details including username, email address, quota, usage, daily send limit, messages sent today, and suspension status for a given domain and local user.

Instructions

Returns the details of one mailbox: username, full email address, quota in MB (0 = unlimited), current usage in MB, daily send limit, messages sent today, and suspended status. user is the mailbox local part (the part before the @).

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`user`	Yes	Local part of the email address (the part before the @), e.g. your_mailbox (1-64 chars)
`domain`	Yes	Domain name on this account, e.g. example.com (letters, digits, hyphens; at least one dot)

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`sent`	Yes
`email`	Yes
`limit`	Yes
`quota`	Yes
`usage`	Yes
`username`	Yes
`suspended`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Nov 8, 2026

TDQS

A3.8/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

The annotations already declare that this is a safe, idempotent read operation, so the description does not need to restate that. It adds useful interpretation for quota values ('0 = unlimited') but does not describe error behavior, authentication requirements, or what happens when the mailbox does not exist.

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 two compact sentences with no filler. The core behavior is front-loaded, followed by a clarifying note about the 'user' parameter.

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?

For a simple read-only getter with full schema coverage, annotations, and an output schema, the description is largely complete. The only minor gap is that it does not mention failure behavior when the mailbox or domain does not exist.

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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so both parameters are already documented in the input schema. The description repeats that 'user' is the mailbox local part but adds no new format or constraint details beyond the schema.

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 states a specific verb and resource: it returns details of one mailbox, and it lists the exact fields returned. The phrase 'one mailbox' clearly distinguishes it from list_email_accounts and other domain-level sibling tools.

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?

Usage is implied by 'one mailbox,' which suggests the tool is for fetching a single existing account rather than listing accounts. However, there is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no exclusions, and no mention of the sibling list_email_accounts.

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

Deploy Server