Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
AliMail Admin MCP

AliMail Admin MCP

by mfc-open
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

获取用户信息

get_user
Read-onlyIdempotent

Retrieve Alibaba Mail user details by user ID or email address, with optional selection of extra fields such as phone or manager email.

Instructions

根据用户 ID 或邮箱获取用户详情。

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": {
      "user": "<user>"
    },
    "name": "get_user"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
userYes用户 ID 或邮箱地址（主邮箱或别名）
selectNo透传 $select，指定额外返回字段，多个用英文逗号分隔，如 phone,managerEmail,isHidden

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

C2.9/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=true, covering the safety and idempotency profile. The description adds nothing beyond annotations: no mention of what happens when the user is not found, permission requirements, or what 用户详情 contains.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler or redundancy. It is arguably over-compact for a tool with a passthrough $select parameter, but nothing in it is wasteful.

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 two-parameter read tool with 100% schema coverage, full annotations, and no output schema, the description covers the core purpose adequately. It is still thin on result contents and on how this differs from the batch/list siblings, which is the main missing context.

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%, so both `user` (ID or email, primary or alias) and `select` (passthrough $select with example fields) are already documented in the schema. The description restates the `user` lookup options but adds no meaning about `select` or about ambiguity resolution when an email matches multiple users.

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

Purpose4/5

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

States a specific verb (获取) and resource (用户详情) plus the accepted lookup keys (用户 ID 或邮箱), so the agent knows exactly what it retrieves. It does not distinguish itself from siblings like get_users_by_ids (batch) or list_users (enumeration), leaving the single-vs-batch boundary implicit.

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?

The sentence names the lookup keys but gives no when-to-use guidance, no exclusions, and no alternative tools for batch retrieval or listing. An agent could reasonably pick get_users_by_ids or list_users instead with no signal from this description.

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