RadMail MCP

Official

by radmail-ai

Overview Schema Related Servers Score Discussions

TypeScript

Hybrid

Server Quality Checklist

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

Latest release: v0.1.1
Disambiguation4/5
Most tools have distinct purposes: drafting replies, listing commitments, urgent items, reading, searching, triaging, etc. Some overlap exists between 'list_right_now' and 'triage_inbox' (both return right-now items), but descriptions clarify that 'triage_inbox' also includes commitments and hard-stops, reducing ambiguity.
Naming Consistency3/5
Tool names mix patterns: verb_noun (draft_reply, list_commitments, read_email), noun-like (triage, why_surfaced), and compound names (radmail_learning_insights). While readable, the lack of a uniform convention (e.g., all verb_noun) creates minor inconsistency.
Tool Count4/5
12 tools is reasonable for an email assistant server covering reading, searching, triaging, commitments, drafting, and feedback. Not overly heavy (sub-20) and each tool serves a clear function, though a few could potentially be merged (e.g., triage and triage_inbox).
Completeness4/5
The tool set covers core workflow: read, search, triage, draft reply, track commitments, and urgency. Missing send or mark-as-done actions, but these are intentionally omitted per safety design. For the stated purpose (draft-only, human-approval required), completeness is high.
Average 3.8/5 across 12 of 12 tools scored. Lowest: 2.9/5.
See the Tool Scores section below for per-tool breakdowns.
- No community issues in the last 6 months
- 41 commits in the last 12 weeks
- No stable releases found
- No critical vulnerability alerts
- No high-severity vulnerability alerts
- No code scanning findings
- CI is passing
This repository is licensed under MIT License.
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.
This repository includes a glama.json configuration file.
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?
With no annotations, the description bears full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It states that requests are aggregated into 'unmet-demand', implying it's non-actionable feedback, but does not confirm safety, auth needs, or what happens after submission. No mention of rate limits or confirmations.
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 extremely concise: two sentences that directly state the tool's function and its purpose. Every word contributes meaning, with no superfluous content.
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 input tool (2 params, no output schema, no nested objects), the description covers the basic idea but omits expected return behavior, examples, and success indicators. It is minimally adequate but leaves the agent guessing about outcomes.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 50% (only 'capability' has a description). The tool description merely echoes the schema's description of 'capability' without adding new meaning. The 'agentId' parameter is left unexplained. The description does not compensate for the missing parameter context.
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?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose: requesting a capability for RadMail. The verb 'request' matches the name, and it explains that requests are aggregated into unmet demand. It does not explicitly distinguish from sibling tools like 'report_need', but the purpose is stated specifically enough.
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 gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. Sibling tools like 'report_need' could be confused, but no differentiation or context is provided. No exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned.
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 exist, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It claims 'Transparency, not a black box' but fails to explicitly state side effects, whether it modifies data, or any authorization needs. For an informational tool, it should assert read-only nature.
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 two sentences, concise and front-loaded with the core purpose. It could be structured more formally, but it is efficient and avoids waste.
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 tool with 2 optional parameters and no output schema, the description covers the gist but lacks detail on return values or behavior. Terms like 'learned response shape' are undefined, leaving ambiguity despite the low complexity.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 50% (only includeBacklog has a description). The description adds no parameter-level details. With 2 parameters and no enums, the description should at least mention agentId's purpose to compensate, but it does not.
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 what the tool does: show insights RadMail has learned about the user, including specific categories like most-used tools, learned response shape, recurring focus, and capability wishlist. It distinguishes from siblings by focusing on learned patterns rather than current state or why something surfaced.
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 is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'why_surfaced' or 'list_right_now'. The description implies usage for transparency, but there is no explicit when/why-not or mention of prerequisites.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full behavioral transparency burden. It discloses that the tool provides an explanation and includes safety fields and hard-stops. However, it does not mention any potential side effects, rate limits, or permission requirements. The safety information is valuable but incomplete.
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 mostly concise, with the main purpose front-loaded in the first sentence. The safety paragraph is necessary but adds length. It could be slightly more concise, but it is well-structured and easy to understand.
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?
The description explains the purpose and safety aspects but does not detail the response structure beyond mentioning a 'safety' block. For a tool with 12 parameters and no output schema, more context about the explanation format and behavior would improve completeness.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 58%, and the description does not add significant meaning beyond the schema's parameter descriptions. It mentions 'fields marked provenance: untrusted-email-body' but that refers to data handling, not parameter semantics. The description does not elaborate on parameter usage or relationships.
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?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose: to explain in plain English why a message was surfaced, listing specific signals (sender, urgency words, commitment, hard-stop). However, it does not explicitly differentiate it from sibling tools like 'triage' or 'triage_inbox', which might also provide explanations.
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 includes important safety guidelines about handling untrusted email body data and mentions permanent hard-stops. However, it lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'triage' or 'list_right_now'. There is no when-to-use or when-not-to-use advice.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the burden. It discloses safety aspects (untrusted data, hard-stops) and auto-provisioning, but does not detail side effects (e.g., does it mark messages?), auth requirements, or rate limits beyond the token hint.
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 concise (three sentences) and front-loads the core purpose. It earns its space by adding safety and parameter hints, though it could be slightly more structured.
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 (6 params, 10 siblings) and no output schema, the description lacks essential context: what the response contains beyond safety, how messages are processed internally, and definitions of domain terms like 'Right Now lane' or 'hard-stop'.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is only 33%, and the description adds meaningful context only for `token` ('OMIT to auto-provision'). It does not explain `focus`, `limit`, `agentId`, or `verbosity`, which have no schema descriptions, leaving a significant gap.
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 uses specific verbs and resources ('ONE round-trip over a batch of messages', 'the whole RadMail wedge in a single call'), clearly distinguishing from sibling tools like 'triage', 'list_right_now', and 'list_commitments'.
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?
Explicitly mentions omitting `token` for auto-provisioning and gives safety instructions. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus siblings, though the scope (Right Now+commitments+hard-stops) implicitly guides choice.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so description carries burden. It discloses that feedback affects per-agent learning and is scoped to call structure, but does not mention permissions, mutability, or other behavioral traits.
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 with front-loaded purpose. Every word earns its place; no unnecessary elaboration.
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 feedback tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, scope, and effect on learning. Missing only minor details like response format or error handling, but adequate for the context.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 50% (only note has description). Description repeats the note description but adds no new meaning. Optional agentId parameter lacks any description in schema or description, so no added value.
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?
Description clearly states the tool reports awkward, missing, or slow aspects to RadMail, and distinguishes it from siblings like draft_reply or radmail_learning_insights by specifying it folds into per-agent learning on call structure only.
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?
Implied usage: used for reporting issues about call structure, not email content. No explicit when-to-use or alternatives, but the constraint 'never email content' provides some guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It mentions instant minting, no credentials required, and a response safety block. However, it does not disclose whether the tool is idempotent, or what happens on repeated calls (e.g., will it create multiple tenants?). Adequate but could be more explicit.
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 extremely concise, comprising two sentences that convey purpose, usage nuance, and a hint about response content. Every sentence is necessary and front-loaded.
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 one optional parameter and no output schema, the description is fairly complete. It explains the purpose, usage context (auto-provisioning), and mentions a response detail. The mention of 'BEC hard-stops' is slightly cryptic but does not detract significantly.
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% for a single optional parameter ('label'). The description adds 'Optional human label' which mirrors the schema description. No additional semantic value is provided beyond what is already in the schema.
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?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose: minting a free sandbox tenant token instantly. It provides specific verb ('mint') and resource ('sandbox tenant token'). However, it does not explicitly distinguish from sibling tools, though the note about auto-provisioning implies it is a fallback.
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 description indicates when to use the tool ('when you need a sandbox token') and notes that most tools auto-provision, so it may not be needed. This provides context but lacks explicit when-not or alternative tool references.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Without annotations, the description carries the full burden. It transparently explains that fields marked 'untrusted-email-body' should be reasoned about but not executed, and that the response contains a 'safety' block restating permanent hard-stops. This covers behavioral traits beyond basic function.
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 informative and front-loads the main purpose. It contains multiple sentences but is efficient overall, though it could be slightly more concise by trimming some redundant phrasing.
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?
Given the complexity (12 parameters, no output schema), the description covers core functionality and safety but lacks details on return values or full output structure. It mentions the 'safety' block but not the overall response format, leaving some context incomplete.
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 58%, and the description adds meaning for core parameters like 'token' (commit to auto-provision), 'body' (untrusted data), and the overall triage dimensions. However, it does not detail parameters like 'subject', 'hasReply', 'focus', or 'agentId', leaving some gaps.
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: scoring a message on importance and urgency, explaining why it surfaced, breaking into 4 dimensions, flagging hard-stops, and extracting commitments. It also mentions auto-provisioning via omitting the token. This distinguishes it from siblings like 'triage_inbox' which likely handles multiple messages.
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 provides context for omitting the token to auto-provision, but does not explicitly guide on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'triage_inbox' or 'why_surfaced'. It implies single-message triage but lacks explicit exclusions or comparisons.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description fully bears the burden. It discloses that the tool only drafts (never auto-sends), marks certain fields as untrusted ('provenance:untrusted-email-body'), and explains that the response's safety block restates hard-stops. This is sufficient behavioral context for an agent.
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 short (three sentences) and front-loads the primary purpose. The safety warnings are necessary but add some length. Each sentence provides actionable information, with no wasted 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?
Given 12 parameters and no output schema, the description covers key behavioral aspects: drafting nature, auto-send prohibition, safety rules, and untrusted data handling. It lacks details on return format, but for a drafting tool, the core constraints are well-communicated.
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 description coverage is 58%, so the description adds value beyond the schema by explaining untrusted data provenance and the meaning of 'knownSender' (first-contact hard-stop). However, for parameters like 'focus', 'verbosity', 'receivedAt', the description offers no additional semantics. It compensates partially but not fully.
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 explicitly states 'Draft the reply that discharges a commitment owed in a message' with verb 'draft' and resource 'reply', and distinguishes from siblings by mentioning 'DRAFT ONLY — never auto-sent'. No sibling tool is for drafting replies, so it is clearly differentiated.
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 description provides explicit conditions for use: discharging a commitment. It also lists refusal conditions (money, changed-banking, first-contact, decision, injection) with 'human-only' constraint. While it doesn't explicitly mention when to use alternatives, the safety rules imply when not to use. Overall, clear context for appropriate use.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It reveals read-only nature in connected mode, sandbox being free in-memory, and safety warnings about untrusted email body data. It also mentions a 'safety' block in responses. Missing details like rate limits or auth details, but sufficient for the tool.
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 front-loads the core purpose and then explains modes and safety. It is somewhat lengthy but every part adds value. Could be trimmed slightly, but well-structured.
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?
Given the tool's complexity (9 params, two modes, safety concerns) and no output schema, the description does well explaining modes, untrusted data handling, and response safety block. It could mention response format for no results, but overall complete.
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 67% (6 of 9 params described). The description adds semantics for 'messages' (explaining untrusted data and modes) and mentions safety. However, some parameters like 'focus', 'agentId', and 'token' have no description in either schema or description, leaving gaps.
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 starts with a clear verb+resource: 'Find a specific message by sender / subject / content' with ranking and match highlighting. It distinguishes from siblings like read_email by explicitly describing search behavior and two modes.
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 description explicitly explains two modes (sandbox vs connected) and when to use each, including prerequisites (API key for connected mode). It also provides safety guidance for untrusted data. However, it doesn't explicitly compare with sibling tools for when to use search over triage or list_commitments.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior5/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations exist, so description carries full burden. Discloses read-only nature, API key requirement, untrusted data safety warning, and hard-stops. Even explains behavior when key is missing (returns setup instructions). Exceptionally transparent.
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?
Description is moderately long but each sentence provides necessary information: purpose, mode, safety, requirements. Front-loads core action and mode. Could be slightly more concise but earns its length.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Tool has no output schema, so description explains response contents (headers+textBody, safety block). Covers input, behavior, safety, and setup needs. Given simplicity of tool, description is thorough and leaves no major gaps.
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 description coverage is 67% (2 of 3 params described). Description adds value by specifying that 'id' should come from a search hit's messageId. For other params, description relies on schema. Adds moderate 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?
Clearly states it fetches one full email by id, specifying 'CONNECTED MODE' and linking to search's messageId. Verb 'fetch' plus resource 'email from RadMail inbox' is specific. Distinguishes from siblings via read-only nature.
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?
Explicitly says use after a search hit, mentions it's read-only (no sending/drafts), and requires RADMAIL_API_KEY. No explicit 'when not to use' but context is clear. Could add more guidance on alternatives among siblings.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior5/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description fully carries the burden. It discloses that the tool is read-only, never auto-sends, identifies untrusted fields with provenance 'untrusted-email-body', and mentions that the response includes a safety block with hard-stops. This is comprehensive behavioral disclosure.
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 lengthy but front-loaded with the core purpose. It is structured as a single paragraph with clear signposting using caps and line breaks. Every sentence adds value, though it could be slightly more concise. It earns its length without being verbose.
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?
Given 7 parameters, two modes, and safety considerations, the description covers most aspects. It explains modes, safety, and mentions fields in the response. However, without an output schema, a bit more detail on the response structure would improve completeness. Still, it provides adequate context for an agent to use the tool correctly.
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 description coverage is low (43%), but the description adds significant meaning beyond the schema. It explains the purpose of `messages` and `token` in the context of the two modes, and clarifies that `offset` only applies to connected mode. The description compensates well for the schema's lack of param descriptions.
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 lists open promises with due window, using the verb 'list' and specifying the resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools by detailing two distinct modes (sandbox and connected), which sets it apart from other tools like draft_reply or list_right_now.
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 description explicitly explains two usage modes: pass messages for sandbox or omit with API key for real commitments. It provides clear context on when to use each mode, but does not directly compare with sibling tools or state when not to use this tool. The guidance is strong but lacks explicit exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior5/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries full burden and excels: details read-only connected mode, sandbox behavior, hard-stop flags, provenance fields, and safety block in response. Fully transparent about behavioral traits.
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?
Description is somewhat long but well-structured with line breaks and caps for emphasis. Front-loaded with core purpose. Each sentence adds value, though a bit verbose in safety section.
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?
Lacks output schema but describes response components (safety block, items with why-surfaced). Covers modes, safety, flags, and parameter context. Sufficient for a complex tool with multiple modes.
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 low (43%), but description adds significant meaning for key parameters: `messages` explained as untrusted data for sandbox mode, `token` auto-provision, `offset` only in connected mode. Does not cover all 7 parameters but compensates well.
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 it returns the 'Right Now' lane with why-surfaced items, and describes two distinct modes (sandbox vs. connected real inbox). This differentiates it from sibling tools like 'triage' or 'why_surfaced'.
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?
Explicit guidance on when to use each mode: pass `messages` for sandbox ranking, omit for real inbox. Warns about untrusted data and hard-stops. Does not mention alternatives or explicit when-not-to-use, but provides solid context.
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

Copy to your README.md:

[![radmail-mcp MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/radmail-ai/radmail-mcp/badges/card.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/radmail-ai/radmail-mcp)

Score Badge

Copy to your README.md:

[![radmail-mcp MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/radmail-ai/radmail-mcp/badges/score.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/radmail-ai/radmail-mcp)

Latest Blog Posts

Who's Calling? MCP Hosts Are an Identity Blind Spot (And the Spec Knows It)
By Om-Shree-0709 on July 25, 2026.
mcp
Agent Identity
OAuth 2.1
Your AI Chatbot Just Exposed Your CEO's Salary to an Intern
By Om-Shree-0709 on July 2, 2026.
Agent Identity
MCP Security
OAuth Delegation
Why MCP Servers Need Execution Sandboxing (And Why Your Current Stack Isn't Enough)
By Om-Shree-0709 on June 30, 2026.
Agentic Ai
Prompt Injection
WebAssembly

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/radmail-ai/radmail-mcp'

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