Creates an inbound email routing rule to match addresses by exact, prefix, or catch-all pattern and send matched messages to a webhook.
Create a routing rule for inbound email.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| pattern | Yes | Address pattern to match | |
| priority | No | Route priority (default 0, higher is checked first) | |
| domain_id | Yes | Domain UUID | |
| match_type | Yes | How to match the pattern | |
| webhook_url | No | Webhook URL that receives matched emails |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says 'Create' and does not explain side effects, whether the route activates immediately, how conflicts with existing patterns or priorities are handled, or what permissions are required.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It is concise, though the brevity contributes to gaps addressed in other dimensions.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a mutation tool with five parameters, required fields, an enum, and no annotations or output schema, the description is incomplete. It omits required setup, matching semantics, priority behavior, and webhook delivery implications that an agent would need to call it correctly.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the input schema already documents all five parameters, including match_type enum values and priority default. The description adds no additional semantics beyond the schema baseline.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states a specific verb and resource: 'Create a routing rule for inbound email.' It is clear enough to distinguish from listing or updating inbound routes, though it does not explicitly name alternatives or contrast with related tools like create_webhook.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as create_webhook or update_inbound_route, nor does it mention prerequisites like domain verification or required permissions. Usage is only implied by the tool name.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.