Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Postmark Account MCP

Postmark Account MCP

by ckaklamanos
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
JavaScript
Remote

List Postmark accounts & servers

list_servers
Read-onlyIdempotent

Retrieve configured Postmark accounts and their servers—names, IDs, and message streams—with optional account filtering; tokens are never returned and the accounts file is re-read.

Instructions

List all configured accounts and their servers (name, ID, message streams). Tokens are never returned. Re-reads the accounts file.

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "list_servers"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
accountNoAccount name from the accounts file (partial, case-insensitive). Omit for ALL accounts.
include_streamsNoAlso list each server's message streams (default true)

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv1.1.0

TDQS

A3.7/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare the tool as read-only, idempotent, open-world, and non-destructive. The description adds useful context beyond that: tokens are never returned and the accounts file is re-read, which affects freshness and security expectations.

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 three short, front-loaded sentences with no filler. Each sentence contributes useful information about scope, secret handling, and data freshness.

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?

For a simple two-parameter listing tool with full schema coverage and rich annotations, the description is complete enough. It states what is returned, that tokens are omitted, and that the accounts file is re-read, which covers the main behavioral considerations.

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 coverage is 100%, and the schema fully documents both optional parameters: account and include_streams. The description does not add syntax or filtering semantics beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 is appropriate.

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?

The description clearly states the verb and resources: listing configured accounts and their servers, with fields name, ID, and message streams. It does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools, but the scope is specific enough for an agent to identify the operation.

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 explains what the tool lists but gives no explicit guidance on when to use it versus alternatives. There is no mention of exclusions, prerequisites, or sibling tools such as search_messages or delivery_stats.

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