Mailganer API MCP

by dkanster

Overview Schema Related Servers Score Discussions

Python

Local

Server Quality Checklist

Profile completionA complete profile improves this server's visibility in search results.

Latest release: v0.5.2
Disambiguation5/5
Each tool has a clearly distinct purpose. Tools like 'get_api_endpoint_doc', 'get_api_overview', and 'get_doc_status' target different resources, while 'get_postman_request' and 'get_linked_postman_request' are differentiated by inclusion of related docs. 'check_doc_page' uniquely compares cached vs live content. No two tools overlap in functionality.
Naming Consistency5/5
All tool names follow a consistent 'verb_noun' pattern in snake_case. Verbs are appropriate (get, list, search, sync, rebuild, check) and nouns clearly describe the resource. No mixing of styles or vague terms.
Tool Count5/5
With 12 tools, the set is well-scoped for managing Mailganer API documentation and Postman integration. Each tool serves a necessary function without being excessive or lacking.
Completeness4/5
The tool surface covers documentation retrieval, search, sync, crosslink management, and status checks. Minor gaps exist (e.g., no tool for granular cache invalidation), but core workflows are fully supported.
Average 3.4/5 across 12 of 12 tools scored.
See the Tool Scores section below for per-tool breakdowns.
- No community issues in the last 6 months
- 8 commits in the last 12 weeks
- Last stable release on July 12, 2026
- No critical vulnerability alerts
- No high-severity vulnerability alerts
- No code scanning findings
- CI is failing
This repository is licensed under MIT License.
This repository includes a README.md file.
No tool usage detected in the last 30 days. Usage tracking helps demonstrate server value.
Tip: use the "Try in Browser" feature on the server page to seed initial usage.
Add a glama.json file to provide metadata about your server.
If you are the author, simply .
If the server belongs to an organization, first add glama.json to the root of your repository:
```
{
  "$schema": "https://glama.ai/mcp/schemas/server.json",
  "maintainers": [
    "your-github-username"
  ]
}
```
Then . Browse examples.
Add related servers to improve discoverability.

How to sync the server with GitHub?

Servers are automatically synced at least once per day, but you can also sync manually at any time to instantly update the server profile.

To manually sync the server, click the "Sync Server" button in the MCP server admin interface.

How is the quality score calculated?

The overall quality score combines two components: Tool Definition Quality (70%) and Server Coherence (30%).

Tool Definition Quality measures how well each tool describes itself to AI agents. Every tool is scored 1–5 across six dimensions: Purpose Clarity (25%), Usage Guidelines (20%), Behavioral Transparency (20%), Parameter Semantics (15%), Conciseness & Structure (10%), and Contextual Completeness (10%). The server-level definition quality score is calculated as 60% mean TDQS + 40% minimum TDQS, so a single poorly described tool pulls the score down.

Server Coherence evaluates how well the tools work together as a set, scoring four dimensions equally: Disambiguation (can agents tell tools apart?), Naming Consistency, Tool Count Appropriateness, and Completeness (are there gaps in the tool surface?).

Tiers are derived from the overall score: A (≥3.5), B (≥3.0), C (≥2.0), D (≥1.0), F (<1.0). B and above is considered passing.

Tool Scores

Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only states what it builds, not side effects (e.g., if it modifies state), prerequisites (e.g., cache populated), or error handling (e.g., missing slug). The lack of transparency for a potentially stateful operation is a gap.
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 a single, well-structured sentence that conveys the core functionality efficiently. It is front-loaded with the action verb 'Build' and the key inputs. Minor improvement would be to clarify 'cached docs'.
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 having no output schema, the description does not explain what the tool returns or its format. For a tool that prepares data for further use, this is a significant gap. Also, the nested path_params object lacks guidance on how to structure values.
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%, providing clear descriptions and examples for both parameters. The description adds no additional semantic value beyond the schema, so baseline score of 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 tool builds method, path, auth mode, and example body from cached docs using a slug. This distinguishes it from siblings like get_api_endpoint_doc (retrieval) and call_mailganer_api (execution). However, it could be more explicit about the output format.
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?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. For example, it doesn't mention that this should be used before calling call_mailganer_api, or that it requires a slug from a prior search. Usage context is entirely implicit.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries full behavioral disclosure burden. It mentions 'cached' (indicating non-live data) but omits key traits: read-only nature, result format, pagination (though limit parameter exists), rate limits, or auth requirements. This is insufficient for a mutation-free tool.
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?
A single concise sentence efficiently conveys the core purpose. It is front-loaded and has no fluff, though it could optionally mention key parameters. Still, it earns its place without excess.
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?
Given no output schema and only 2 parameters, the description should specify return value behavior (e.g., list of doc titles, snippets) but does not. The tool's complexity is low, but the description is incomplete, leaving agents to guess what the search yields.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is only 50% (limit lacks description). The tool description adds 'Full-text search' which clarifies query semantics, but does not explain the limit parameter's effect (e.g., max results, pagination). The description does not fully compensate for the schema's gaps.
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?
Description clearly states the tool performs 'Full-text search in cached Mailganer API documentation', specifying the verb (search), resource (cached API documentation), and scope (full-text). It distinguishes from sibling tools like get_api_endpoint_doc and search_postman by its focus on API docs rather than Postman or specific endpoints.
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?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like search_postman or get_api_endpoint_doc. The description does not mention prerequisites, exclusions, or context for use, leaving the agent without decision support.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, and the description does not disclose behavioral traits such as read-only nature, rate limits, or side effects. The burden on description is high, but it remains silent.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence, concise but lacking detail. It could be expanded with usage context without becoming verbose.
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?
No output schema, no annotations, and no description of return values or behavior. For a simple search tool, more context is needed for reliable invocation, especially given sibling tools.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 50% (query described, limit not). The tool description adds no extra meaning for the undocumented 'limit' parameter, only mentions 'by keyword' which repeats schema for query.
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 action (search) and the resource (Mailganer Postman collection requests). It distinguishes from sibling 'search_api_docs' by specifying Postman requests vs API docs.
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?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_postman_request or search_api_docs. Agent must infer use cases.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description only says 'live HTTP request', implying actual execution but fails to disclose potential side effects, authentication needs beyond schema, rate limits, or that it may modify data. No annotations to supplement.
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 sentence that is front-loaded and contains no unnecessary words. Every word earns its place.
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?
For a generic HTTP client tool with 5 parameters and no output schema, the description is too minimal. It does not explain response format, error behavior, or side effects, leaving the agent underinformed.
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% with descriptions for each parameter, so the description does not need to add parameter info. The description adds no additional meaning 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 clearly states the action ('execute') and the resource ('Mailganer REST API'), with a specific verb and resource. No sibling confusion as other tools are documentation-related.
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?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. Lacks any context about prerequisites, scenarios, or when not to use it.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It only says 're-sync' but doesn't disclose destructive potential, network requirements, rate limits, or what happens to existing docs.
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?
Single sentence, no wasted words. Could be restructured to front-load the purpose more explicitly, but effective.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's simplicity (1 parameter, no output schema) and sibling set, the description is adequate but lacks completeness about when to sync or what happens during sync.
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% with parameter 'target' documented. The description adds context of syncing from web sources to docs/, but doesn't add meaning beyond the schema's enum values. Baseline 3 is appropriate.
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 syncs Mailganer API documentation from web sources to docs/. It uses a specific verb (re-sync) and resource, distinguishing it from sibling tools that check, list, or search docs.
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?
No guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives. The description does not mention prerequisites, when not to use, or which sibling might be more appropriate for specific tasks.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must fully convey behavioral traits. It reveals the tool returns a request plus related documentation, but does not clarify what 'related' means (e.g., cross-links, embedded content), whether it is read-only, or any authentication or performance implications.
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 a single, front-loaded sentence that efficiently conveys the core purpose. It avoids unnecessary detail but could be slightly more structured without being verbose.
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?
Given the lack of an output schema and annotations, the description is insufficient. It does not explain the return format, how 'related' pages are determined, or any prerequisites. The tool's complexity is moderate, but the description falls short.
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% as both parameters have descriptions. The tool description does not add additional meaning beyond what the schema already provides. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate.
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 specific action 'Get' and the resource 'Postman request with related Mailganer documentation pages'. It distinguishes from sibling tools like get_postman_request (which likely returns only the request) by adding 'with related documentation pages'.
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?
The description implies usage when needing both a Postman request and its linked documentation, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool over siblings like search_postman or check_doc_page. No exclusions or alternatives are given.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so description must disclose behavior. It only says 'with documented reasons' but does not explain what reasons are, how the list is generated, or any side effects. Lacks detail on read-only nature or data source.
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?
Single sentence, front-loaded with action and resource. No wasted words.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
No output schema, so description should explain return format. It mentions 'documented reasons' but does not specify what those reasons are or how they are represented. Adequate but leaves ambiguity about the output structure.
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?
No parameters exist, so schema coverage is 100%. The description adds no param info beyond the schema. Baseline for 0 params is 4, but the description does not enrich meaning about output or context; it only restates the tool's purpose.
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 it lists docs and Postman requests without crosslinks, with documented reasons. The verb 'List' and specific resource distinguish it from sibling tools like check_doc_page or rebuild_doc_crosslinks.
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?
No guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives. Does not specify prerequisites, nor when not to use, nor mention sibling tools like rebuild_doc_crosslinks for fixing gaps.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description notes the tool is 'cached,' hinting at performance and possibly stale data, but does not disclose error handling, authentication needs, or response behavior. This is minimal but not misleading.
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 a single sentence with no wasted words, but it could be slightly restructured to front-load key information. Still efficient and clear.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple 1-param tool with no output schema, the description covers the basic purpose and input. However, it lacks information about the response format or error conditions, which would improve completeness.
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% with the 'slug' parameter having a clear example, and the description adds no further detail. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate as the schema already suffices.
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 'Get cached Mailganer API doc page with linked Postman requests' clearly specifies the action (Get), resource (cached Mailganer API doc page), and additional feature (linked Postman requests), distinguishing it from siblings like get_api_overview or get_linked_postman_request.
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?
No explicit guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives. The description does not mention prerequisites, exclusions, or suggest other tools for related tasks, leaving the agent without decision support.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It mentions 'cached' but does not explain implications like staleness, refresh mechanism, rate limits, authorization requirements, or side effects. The agent gets minimal insight beyond the fact that it is a list operation.
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 sentence of 8 words, front-loading the key action and resource. Every word is essential, with no filler. It is perfectly concise and well-structured.
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 list tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description covers the essential purpose and filtering. Minor gaps include lack of return format information, but it is sufficient for an agent to understand the basic function.
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?
Parameter coverage is 100% as the schema describes 'category' as a filter. The description adds the word 'optionally' but does not provide new meaning beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema already does the work.
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 verb 'List' and the resource 'cached Mailganer API documentation pages', with optional category filtering. It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'search_api_docs' or 'get_api_endpoint_doc' by indicating a broad listing action. This is specific and unambiguous.
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?
No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives. Sibling tools like 'search_api_docs' or 'get_api_overview' are not mentioned, nor are any preferred scenarios or exclusions. The description lacks contextual usage advice.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must convey behavioral traits. It does not disclose if this operation is destructive, if it overwrites the existing file, or if it requires specific permissions. The description only states what it rebuilds but not the consequences or safety profile.
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?
A single, clear sentence with no filler. It efficiently communicates the action and target.
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?
For a tool with no parameters and no output schema, the description should explain the broader context, e.g., when to run this, if it is idempotent, or if it requires network access. The current description is too minimal to fully guide an agent.
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 no parameters, and the schema covers 100%. The description adds meaning by specifying the output file path, which is beyond the empty schema. Baseline 4 is appropriate as there are no parameters to elaborate.
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 uses a specific verb 'Rebuild' and identifies the exact resource 'docs ↔ Postman crosslink index' and output file 'docs/crosslinks.json'. It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like 'list_crosslink_gaps' which only lists gaps.
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?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. For example, it does not mention that 'list_crosslink_gaps' might be a prerequisite or that rebuild might be needed after sync operations. Missing when-not-to-use or context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for disclosing behavioral traits. It only states the high-level action (compare and report) but does not specify whether the tool is read-only, what kind of differences are detected, or any side effects. This is insufficient for safe invocation.
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 sentence with no unnecessary words. It is front-loaded with the action and resource, making it efficient for an agent to parse.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Despite the tool's low complexity (1 param, no output schema), the description does not indicate the format of the output ('report differences' is vague). It omits details about pagination, thresholds, or error handling, leaving the agent with incomplete context.
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 single parameter 'slug' is described well in the input schema as 'Page slug to check against live documentation', and the description confirms its role. With 100% schema coverage, the description adds minimal but clear context, exceeding the baseline of 3.
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's purpose: comparing a cached doc page with the live site and reporting differences. The verb 'compare' and specific resources ('cached doc page' vs 'live site') make it distinct from sibling tools like get_doc_status or sync_documentation.
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?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of prerequisites, when-not-to-use, or which scenarios are appropriate. This leaves the agent without context for tool selection.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. It states the tool checks configuration without exposing the full key, which is a key behavioral trait. However, it does not explicitly state that the tool is read-only or has no side effects, nor does it mention any authentication or rate limit considerations. This is adequate but not fully transparent.
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, concise sentence that conveys the tool's purpose and key behavior without any wasted words. It is appropriately sized for the tool's simplicity and is front-loaded with the core function.
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?
While the tool has no parameters and the description covers the basic purpose, it lacks information about the return value or output format. Since there is no output schema, the description should clarify what the tool returns (e.g., a boolean or status message). The description is incomplete for a tool with no output schema, leaving the agent to infer the response structure.
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 input schema has zero parameters, so schema coverage is 100% and the description does not need to add parameter information. According to the guidelines, 0 parameters yield a baseline of 4, which is appropriate here.
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 checks if MAILGANER_API_KEY is configured and specifies it does not expose the full key. This is a specific verb plus resource, and it distinguishes this tool from sibling tools like get_cache_health or get_doc_status, which check different aspects.
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 rather than alternatives. There is no mention of context, prerequisites, or a list of use cases. Given the simplicity of the tool, a brief note on when it's appropriate would be helpful but is absent.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It only mentions topics (auth, limits, pagination) but fails to state that this is a read-only operation, whether authentication is required, or what the response format is. Lacks essential behavioral context.
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?
Description is extremely concise (5 words) and front-loaded. Every word adds value, but could be slightly more informative without sacrificing brevity.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no parameters and no output schema, the description covers the main topics. However, it does not clarify that this is a high-level overview and does not provide endpoint-specific details, leaving some ambiguity for an agent.
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?
No parameters exist, so schema coverage is 100%. Baseline for 0 parameters is 4, and description adds no parameter details but is not required to.
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?
Description clearly states it 'Get Mailganer API overview' and specifies key aspects: auth, limits, pagination. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_api_endpoint_doc which focus on individual endpoints.
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?
No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus siblings. The name and description imply it's a starting point for understanding the API, but no alternates or exclusions are mentioned.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so description must fully disclose behavior. It states the tool reads sync status from cached data, implying no side effects. However, it doesn't mention auth requirements, rate limits, or what 'sync status' entails. For a read-only tool, more detail would improve transparency.
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?
Single sentence of 12 words that front-loads the verb 'Get' and immediately states the resource. No unnecessary words, perfectly concise.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no output schema or annotations, the description is minimal but functional. It doesn't describe the return format or possible status values, which could aid agent in interpreting results. For a simple status tool, it's adequate but leaves room for improvement.
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?
Tool has zero parameters, and schema coverage is 100% (no params to cover). Description adds meaning by specifying the subject of status (Mailganer API docs and Postman collection). Baseline 4 for no parameters is appropriate.
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?
Description clearly states the tool retrieves sync status of cached Mailganer API docs and Postman collection, using specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from siblings like sync_documentation (which performs sync) and check_doc_page (which checks a specific page).
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?
No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. However, the lack of parameters and specific purpose implies it's a simple status check, and siblings like sync_documentation suggest it's used after sync operations. Minimal context for agent decision-making.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It indicates a read-only status check without destructive effects. However, it does not specify the return type (e.g., boolean) or behavior under different cache states (e.g., ready vs. not ready).
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, concise sentence of 14 words that communicates the purpose immediately. It is well-structured and front-loaded, with no wasted words.
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?
Given the tool's simplicity (no parameters, no output schema), the description covers the essential purpose and a key condition (post-install state). However, it lacks information about the return value or how the result is communicated, which would improve completeness.
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 input schema has no parameters, so the description does not need to explain them. The description adds no parameter information, but with zero parameters, the baseline is 4, and no further detail is necessary.
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's purpose: to check if the docs cache is ready to use, specifically mentioning it's empty after pip install without clone/sync. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like check_doc_page or get_doc_status, which focus on specific aspects of documentation rather than cache readiness.
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?
The description provides context that the cache may be empty after pip install, implying the tool is useful for checking readiness before using other doc tools. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., check_doc_page) or provide a clear usage scenario.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits like read-only nature, authentication, or output format. It only says 'get', implying read, but lacks details on side effects, rate limits, or whether multiple results can be returned. The absence of this critical information despite zero annotations is a significant gap.
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 sentence of 13 words that efficiently conveys purpose and key distinction. Every word adds value, and it is front-loaded with the action.
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 retrieval tool with two parameters and full schema coverage, the description is mostly complete. It explains search modes and scope. However, without an output schema, the agent might need to know the response structure, which is not addressed.
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 input schema already describes both parameters (name, path) with clear descriptions. The tool description adds value by explaining that they are alternative search modes (by partial name or exact path) and by scoping the result to exclude related docs. This goes beyond the schema, so a score above the baseline 3 is warranted.
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 'Get a Postman request by partial name or exact API path (without related docs)' clearly states the action (get a request), the resources (Postman request), and the search criteria (partial name or exact path). It distinguishes itself by excluding related docs, which is relevant given the sibling 'get_linked_postman_request'.
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 implies when to use this tool: when you need a Postman request without related documentation, by name or path. It differentiates from alternatives that may include docs, but does not explicitly name siblings or state when not to use.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

GitHub Badge

Glama performs regular codebase and documentation scans to:

Confirm that the MCP server is working as expected.
Confirm that there are no obvious security issues.
Evaluate tool definition quality.

Our badge communicates server capabilities, safety, and installation instructions.

Card Badge

Copy to your README.md:

[![mailganer-api-mcp MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/dkanster/mailganer-api-mcp/badges/card.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/dkanster/mailganer-api-mcp)

Score Badge

Copy to your README.md:

[![mailganer-api-mcp MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/dkanster/mailganer-api-mcp/badges/score.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/dkanster/mailganer-api-mcp)

Latest Blog Posts

Who's Calling? MCP Hosts Are an Identity Blind Spot (And the Spec Knows It)
By Om-Shree-0709 on July 25, 2026.
mcp
Agent Identity
OAuth 2.1
Your AI Chatbot Just Exposed Your CEO's Salary to an Intern
By Om-Shree-0709 on July 2, 2026.
Agent Identity
MCP Security
OAuth Delegation
Why MCP Servers Need Execution Sandboxing (And Why Your Current Stack Isn't Enough)
By Om-Shree-0709 on June 30, 2026.
Agentic Ai
Prompt Injection
WebAssembly

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/dkanster/mailganer-api-mcp'

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