tmailor-mcp

Official

by tmailor-com

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

Python

Remote

List usable domains

list_domains

Read-onlyIdempotent

List your account's domains and check if shared domains are available. Use it to pick a domain before creating a temporary email address.

Instructions

List the account's own domains (custom names are allowed on verified ones) and whether shared domains are available.

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "list_domains"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`own_domains`	Yes
`shared_domains_available`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Oct 20, 2026

TDQS

B3.4/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds a behavioral nuance — custom domain names are permitted only on verified domains, and a flag for shared-domain availability — but the phrasing is ambiguous and does not explain the difference between own vs. shared domains.

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 sentence that front-loads the resource being listed. The parenthetical adds a caveat without bloating the text, though its wording is denser than necessary.

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?

With an output schema present, return values need not be explained, and there are no parameters or authorization caveats the description must carry. It states what is listed and the shared-domain flag, which is adequate for a read-only, parameterless lister.

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?

The tool takes zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. Nothing in the description contradicts the empty 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?

States a specific verb ('List') and resource (the account's domains), plus a secondary output (shared-domain availability). It is clearly distinguishable from all siblings, none of which deal with domains. The parenthetical about custom names on verified domains is slightly cryptic but does not obscure the core purpose.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use guidance and no alternatives named. The tool is plausibly a prerequisite for create_mailbox, but the description never says so. Usage is only inferable from context, not stated.

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

Deploy Server