Skip to main content
Glama
markmnl

fmsg-mcp

by markmnl
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Hybrid

Resolve fmsg address

resolve_address
Read-onlyIdempotent

Resolve a recipient to a full fmsg @user@domain address without sending a message. Returns literal addresses as-is; fails if no match so you can ask for the full address.

Instructions

Resolve a recipient to a full fmsg address without sending anything: a literal @user@domain is returned as-is; this server has no short-name defaults, so other names fail. Fails when nothing matches so you can ask the user for the full address.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
nameYesFull fmsg address (@user@domain) or a short name

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
addressYes
resolutionYesone of "literal", "directory", "default_domain". More values may be added

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed4 schema fields changedv1.1.0
    • addedInput schema / additionalProperties
      Added value: +false
    • changedOutput schema / additionalProperties
      Previous value: -falseNew value: +{}
    • addedOutput schema / properties / resolution / description
      Added value: +"one of \"literal\", \"directory\", \"default_domain\". More values may be added"
    • removedOutput schema / properties / resolution / enum
      Removed value: -[
-  "literal",
-  "directory",
-  "default_domain"
-]
  2. First observedv0.1.3

TDQS

A4.4/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, so the bar is lower, and the description still adds substantive behavior: literal addresses pass through unchanged, there are no short-name defaults, and unmatched names fail loudly rather than silently. No return format is described, but an output schema exists to cover that.

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 dense sentence, front-loaded with the core action, followed by two short clauses covering pass-through, the no-defaults constraint, and the failure mode. No filler.

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 one-parameter, read-only resolver with an output schema, the description covers action, scope, edge case, and failure behavior. Only the post-resolution workflow (which sending tool to feed the result into) is left implicit.

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?

Schema coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3, but the description adds meaning the schema does not: it explains that only a literal @user@domain succeeds and that the 'short name' the schema advertises will in fact fail, which prevents a wasted call.

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?

States a specific verb+resource ('Resolve a recipient to a full fmsg address') and immediately disambiguates from the send-path siblings by stressing 'without sending anything'. An agent can tell this apart from send_message/reply without opening either schema.

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?

Gives clear context (resolve a recipient before sending) and an explicit failure path ('ask the user for the full address'), which is real operational guidance. It never names a sibling tool as the follow-up action, but the when-to-use condition is unambiguous.

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