Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
mcp-server-lobstermail

mcp-server-lobstermail

by lobster-kit
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

Wait for Email

wait_for_email

Wait for an incoming email matching optional filters, using real-time long-polling for instant notification and returning the email body in LLM-safe format.

Instructions

Wait for an incoming email matching optional filters. Returns near-instantly when an email arrives (real-time server-side long-polling). Returns the email body in LLM-safe format.

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": {
      "inbox_id": "<inbox_id>"
    },
    "name": "wait_for_email"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
fromNoFilter by sender address
subjectNoFilter by subject (substring match)
timeoutNoMax wait time in milliseconds (default: 60000, max: 120000)
inbox_idYesInbox ID (e.g. ibx_...)

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Removedv1.5.0
  2. First observedv1.5.1

TDQS

A4/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

The description discloses key behavioral traits: real-time server-side long-polling, near-instant return on arrival, and LLM-safe email format. This adds value beyond the absence of annotations.

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 sentences with no wasted words. It front-loads the main action and follows with behavior and return format.

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?

Without an output schema, the description explains the return value (email body in LLM-safe format). It covers wait behavior, filtering, and result format, though lacks details on error handling.

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?

All parameters are described in the schema (100% coverage), so the description does not need to elaborate further. It merely references 'optional filters,' adding no extra meaning.

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: 'Wait for an incoming email matching optional filters.' It uses a specific verb-resource combination and distinguishes from siblings like check_inbox (non-blocking) and get_email (retrieving existing).

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 for real-time waiting but lacks explicit guidance on when to use versus siblings or when not to use. No alternatives are named, leaving the agent to infer context.

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