Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
ellmos-servercommander-mcp

ellmos-servercommander-mcp

Official
by ellmos-ai
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

sc_mail_read

Read a specific mail message by message_id to check its alpha mail status and verify mail readiness during diagnostics.

Instructions

Alpha mail status endpoint for reading a message.

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": "sc_mail_read"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
message_idNoMessage identifier.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0-alpha.21

TDQS

C2.5/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it discloses almost nothing: it does not say the operation is read-only, what happens if the message_id is unknown, whether the caller needs authorization, or what the response contains. 'Status endpoint' hints at a return shape but never explains it.

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?

It is a single short sentence with no filler, which is structurally clean. The problem is under-specification rather than verbosity, and the most useful information (what it returns) is absent.

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 read tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description should at least characterize the returned data, but it only offers the ambiguous label 'status endpoint'. With one parameter required and zero required params declared, an agent cannot determine preconditions or expected output from this definition.

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% for the single message_id parameter, so the schema already documents it. The description adds no format, source, or lookup guidance beyond that, making the baseline 3 the correct score.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose3/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description names a verb ('reading') and resource ('a message'), which loosely separates it from siblings like sc_mail_list, sc_mail_send, and sc_mail_search. However, the phrase 'Alpha mail status endpoint' is unexplained jargon that muddies whether this reads message content or fetches a delivery/status record, so the purpose is only partially pinned down.

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?

There is no statement of when to use this tool versus sc_mail_list or sc_mail_search, both of which plausibly retrieve messages. The agent is left to infer that a known message_id is a prerequisite for this tool, and 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.

Deploy Server

Other Tools