Skip to main content
Glama

create_inbox

Create a temporary disposable email inbox and receive an email address. Use it to receive verification emails and extract OTP codes for AI agent sign-ups.

Instructions

Create a new disposable email inbox. Returns the inbox ID and email address.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
slugNoCustom address slug (e.g. 'mytest' for mytest@useblip.email)
domainNoEmail domain (defaults to useblip.email)
ttl_minutesNoHow long the inbox should live, in minutes (AGENT tier only, max 90 days). Defaults to 60 minutes if omitted.

Implementation Reference

  • Registration of the 'create_inbox' tool via server.tool() with the tool name 'create_inbox'.
    server.tool(
      "create_inbox",
  • Input schema for create_inbox: defines optional slug (string), domain (string), and ttl_minutes (number) parameters using Zod validation.
    {
      slug: z
        .string()
        .optional()
        .describe("Custom address slug (e.g. 'mytest' for mytest@useblip.email)"),
      domain: z
        .string()
        .optional()
        .describe("Email domain (defaults to useblip.email)"),
      ttl_minutes: z
        .number()
        .optional()
        .describe(
          "How long the inbox should live, in minutes (AGENT tier only, max 90 days). Defaults to 60 minutes if omitted."
        ),
    },
  • Handler function for create_inbox: builds request body from optional params, calls POST /v1/inboxes via blipFetch, and returns the result as JSON text.
      async ({ slug, domain, ttl_minutes }) => {
        const body: Record<string, unknown> = {};
        if (slug) body.slug = slug;
        if (domain) body.domain = domain;
        if (ttl_minutes !== undefined) body.windowMinutes = ttl_minutes;
    
        const result = await blipFetch("/v1/inboxes", {
          method: "POST",
          body: JSON.stringify(body),
        });
    
        return { content: [{ type: "text", text: JSON.stringify(result, null, 2) }] };
      }
    );
  • Helper function blipFetch used by the handler to make authenticated HTTP requests to the Blip API.
    async function blipFetch(
      path: string,
      options: RequestInit = {}
    ): Promise<unknown> {
      const url = `${API_URL}${path}`;
      const res = await fetch(url, {
        ...options,
        headers: {
          Authorization: `Bearer ${API_KEY}`,
          "Content-Type": "application/json",
          ...options.headers,
        },
      });
    
      if (!res.ok) {
        const body = await res.text();
        throw new Error(`Blip API error ${res.status} on ${options.method || "GET"} ${path}: ${body}`);
      }
    
      if (res.status === 204) return null;
      return res.json();
    }
Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool returns an ID and email but omits important traits such as whether the operation is idempotent, what happens on duplicate slug, rate limits, or authentication needs.

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 consists of two brief, front-loaded sentences with no unnecessary words. Every sentence contributes core information.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness2/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Despite good schema coverage, the description lacks guidance on default behavior for optional parameters (e.g., what happens if slug is omitted), error conditions, and lifecycle details. Given 3 optional parameters and no output schema, more context is needed.

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 baseline is 3. The description does not enhance parameter meaning beyond the schema; it only mentions the return value.

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 uses the verb 'create' and specifies the resource 'disposable email inbox'. It explicitly states the return values (inbox ID and email address), distinguishing it from sibling tools like delete_inbox, get_inbox, or list_inboxes.

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

Usage Guidelines2/5

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

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., when to create vs. reuse an existing inbox). It does not mention prerequisites or conditions like slug uniqueness or domain validity.

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

Install Server

Other Tools

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/blipemail/blip'

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