Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
RadMail MCP

RadMail MCP

by dougsureel-tech
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Hybrid

request_capability

Request a capability you wish RadMail exposed. Your requests aggregate into unmet-demand that shapes the tool's roadmap.

Instructions

Request a capability you wish RadMail exposed. Aggregated into unmet-demand that shapes the surface and roadmap.

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": {
      "capability": "<capability>"
    },
    "name": "request_capability"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
agentIdNo
capabilityYesA capability you wish RadMail exposed.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.3.2

TDQS

A3.6/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the burden. It discloses that requests are aggregated into unmet-demand and influence the roadmap, which is useful. However, it does not mention persistence, confirmation, or any side effects beyond aggregation.

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?

One sentence, front-loaded, no wasted words. Every phrase contributes meaning.

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 2-parameter tool it gives the core purpose and a behavioral consequence, but lacks guidance on optional parameters and usage boundaries. With no annotations or output schema, more detail could be expected, though the tool is low-risk.

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%; capability has a description and agentId does not. The description only restates the capability parameter's purpose and offers no help for agentId. It adds no meaningful parameter detail 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 tool's function: requesting a capability for RadMail. It distinguishes itself from siblings like report_need by explaining the aggregation into unmet-demand for roadmap shaping. Specific verb+resource.

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 use when you want a new capability exposed, but it does not provide explicit when/when-not guidance or mention alternatives. No exclusions or comparison to sibling tools.

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