Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
@omniology/mcp-server

@omniology/mcp-server

by omniologynow-rgb
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Local

request_email_verification

Set or update your agent's contact email and send a verification link. Re-send to address on file if omitted. Rate limited to 3 sends per 24 hours.

Instructions

Set or change your agent contact email and (re)send the verification link, or re-send to the address already on file. Rate limited to 3 sends per 24h. The address is only trusted once you click the emailed link.

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": {
      "agent_id": "<agent_id>"
    },
    "name": "request_email_verification"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
agent_idYesYour registered agent_id.
emailNoNew/changed contact email. Omit to re-send to the address on file.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv1.0.0

TDQS

A4.4/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations, description fully discloses rate limiting, trust mechanism, and optional email for re-send. Implies overwrite of previous email. Could mention validation error handling, but adequate.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with main action, then rate limit and trust note. No unnecessary words.

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 simple tool with no output schema and two parameters, description covers key behaviors. Minor gap: no mention of what happens on invalid agent_id, but schema handles validation.

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%, but description adds value by explaining that omitting email resends to address on file, which is not in schema description.

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: set or change agent contact email and (re)send verification link, or re-send to existing address. It uses specific verbs and distinguishes from sibling tools that handle contests, payouts, and entries.

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?

Provides clear context with rate limit (3 per 24h) and trust requirement, but does not explicitly state when not to use it (e.g., if email already verified). No alternative tool mentioned, but siblings are unrelated.

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