Skip to main content
Glama
nimbuswsj

mailplug-jandi-mcp

by nimbuswsj
OverviewSchemaRelated ServersScoreDiscussions
TypeScript
Hybrid

Server Quality Checklist

42%
Profile completionA complete profile improves this server's visibility in search results.

  • Latest release: v0.1.0

  • Disambiguation4/5

    The three tools cover distinct functions: building a JANDI message payload, sending that payload, and a placeholder for Mailplug email ingestion. The first two are complementary and clearly separated; the third is a different domain, though not yet implemented.

    Naming Consistency2/5

    Tool names are inconsistent: the first two use 'jandi_' prefix with verb_noun pattern, while the third uses 'mailplug_' with a different verb_noun style. This mixing of conventions and prefixes makes the set feel disjointed.

    Tool Count3/5

    With only 3 tools, the server is relatively thin but not unreasonably so given its dual purpose. However, the Mailplug part is represented by a single placeholder tool, making the count feel incomplete.

    Completeness2/5

    The JANDI messaging tools cover the core workflow of building and sending a message, but the Mailplug email ingestion is only a placeholder, leaving a significant gap in functionality for that domain.

  • Average 2.9/5 across 3 of 3 tools scored.

    See the Tool Scores section below for per-tool breakdowns.

    • No community issues in the last 6 months
    • 0 commits in the last 12 weeks
    • No stable releases found
    • No critical vulnerability alerts
    • No high-severity vulnerability alerts
    • No code scanning findings
    • CI status not available

  • Add a LICENSE file by following GitHub's guide. Once GitHub recognizes the license, the system will automatically detect it within a few hours.

    If the license does not appear after some time, you can manually trigger a new scan using the MCP server admin interface.

    MCP servers without a LICENSE cannot be installed.

  • This repository includes a README.md file.

  • No tool usage detected in the last 30 days. Usage tracking helps demonstrate server value.

    Tip: use the "Try in Browser" feature on the server page to seed initial usage.

  • Add a glama.json file to provide metadata about your server.

  • If you are the author, simply .

    If the server belongs to an organization, first add glama.json to the root of your repository:

    {
  "$schema": "https://glama.ai/mcp/schemas/server.json",
  "maintainers": [
    "your-github-username"
  ]
}

    Then . Browse examples.

  • Add related servers to improve discoverability.

How to sync the server with GitHub?

Servers are automatically synced at least once per day, but you can also sync manually at any time to instantly update the server profile.

To manually sync the server, click the "Sync Server" button in the MCP server admin interface.

How is the quality score calculated?

The overall quality score combines two components: Tool Definition Quality (70%) and Server Coherence (30%).

Tool Definition Quality measures how well each tool describes itself to AI agents. Every tool is scored 1–5 across six dimensions: Purpose Clarity (25%), Usage Guidelines (20%), Behavioral Transparency (20%), Parameter Semantics (15%), Conciseness & Structure (10%), and Contextual Completeness (10%). The server-level definition quality score is calculated as 60% mean TDQS + 40% minimum TDQS, so a single poorly described tool pulls the score down.

Server Coherence evaluates how well the tools work together as a set, scoring four dimensions equally: Disambiguation (can agents tell tools apart?), Naming Consistency, Tool Count Appropriateness, and Completeness (are there gaps in the tool surface?).

Tiers are derived from the overall score: A (≥3.5), B (≥3.0), C (≥2.0), D (≥1.0), F (<1.0). B and above is considered passing.

Tool Scores

  • Behavior2/5

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

    The description lacks behavioral details such as side effects, idempotency, or permissions. With no annotations provided, the description carries full responsibility but only states the basic function without disclosing important traits like whether the message is sent immediately or queued.

    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?

    The description is a single short sentence, which is concise but at the cost of completeness. It does not waste words, but it also fails to provide essential information about parameters or behavior.

    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?

    Given the complexity of three parameters (including nested objects) and no output schema or annotations, the description is too brief to be complete. It omits return values, error conditions, and parameter purpose, leaving significant gaps for the agent.

    Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

    Parameters1/5

    Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

    The description does not explain any of the three parameters (body, color, fields), despite 0% schema description coverage. The agent receives no help understanding what 'color' or 'fields' mean in context, relying solely on the schema structure.

    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 action ('Send') and the target resource ('message to the configured JANDI Incoming Webhook URL'), distinguishing it from the sibling tool jandi_build_message, which likely constructs messages. The purpose is unambiguous.

    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 description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus its siblings or alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites, exclusions, or typical use cases, leaving the agent to infer usage.

    Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

  • Behavior1/5

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

    No annotations provided, and the description only says it's a placeholder for future POP3-based ingestion. It does not disclose what currently happens (e.g., returns an error, empty list), leaving behavior completely opaque.

    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?

    The description is a single sentence, front-loaded with the placeholder status. It is efficient but could be slightly more informative about the intended future behavior.

    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 placeholder tool with no parameters or output schema, the description is adequate in stating its placeholder nature. However, it lacks completeness for an agent to understand what to expect if invoked now.

    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?

    No parameters exist, and schema coverage is vacuously 100%. The description adds no parameter info, which is acceptable as there are none. Baseline of 4 applies.

    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 states 'List recent Mailplug messages' but then says it's a placeholder for future ingestion, creating ambiguity about current functionality. It is adequate but not fully clear due to the placeholder caveat.

    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?

    No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. Sibling tools are for a different platform (Jandi), but no context is given for when to invoke this placeholder.

    Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

  • Behavior2/5

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

    No annotations are provided, so the description bears full responsibility for disclosing behavioral traits. It only states the core action (build payload, no sending) but does not mention side effects, idempotency, permissions, or rate limits. This leaves significant gaps.

    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 a single, effective sentence that front-loads the action. No unnecessary words.

    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?

    Given no output schema and no annotations, the description should provide a more complete picture. It fails to indicate what the tool returns or any prerequisites. The tool is simple but the description is overly minimal.

    Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

    Parameters1/5

    Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

    Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description adds no additional information about the parameters beyond their names. An agent has no guidance on expected formats, constraints, or how to use 'color' and 'fields'.

    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: building a JANDI Incoming Webhook payload without sending it. It distinguishes itself from the sibling 'jandi_send_message' which presumably sends the payload.

    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?

    The phrase 'without sending it' implicitly guides when to use this tool versus the sibling 'jandi_send_message'. However, it does not elaborate on other usage contexts or when not to use it.

    Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

GitHub Badge

Glama performs regular codebase and documentation scans to:

  • Confirm that the MCP server is working as expected.
  • Confirm that there are no obvious security issues.
  • Evaluate tool definition quality.

Our badge communicates server capabilities, safety, and installation instructions.

Card Badge

mailplug-jandi-mcp MCP server

Copy to your README.md:

Score Badge

mailplug-jandi-mcp MCP server

Copy to your README.md:

Latest Blog Posts

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/nimbuswsj/mailplug-jandi-mcp'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server