Skip to main content
Glama
zerodrop-dev

zerodrop-mcp

by zerodrop-dev
OverviewSchemaRelated ServersScoreDiscussions
JavaScript

Server Quality Checklist

75%
Profile completionA complete profile improves this server's visibility in search results.

  • Latest release: v0.1.2

  • Disambiguation5/5

    Each tool has a clearly distinct purpose: generate_inbox creates an inbox, wait_for_email blocks for incoming emails, and check_inbox polls immediately. There is no overlap in functionality.

    Naming Consistency4/5

    Tools generally follow a verb_noun pattern (generate_inbox, check_inbox), but wait_for_email deviates slightly with a preposition. Overall, names are intuitive and consistent in style.

    Tool Count5/5

    Three tools is well-scoped for a disposable email service. It covers creation, polling, and blocking waiting without unnecessary extras.

    Completeness5/5

    The set covers the essential lifecycle for email testing: create an inbox, wait for an email, and check for emails instantly. Missing operations like deletion are handled automatically by the service, so no gaps.

  • Average 4.3/5 across 3 of 3 tools scored.

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

    • No community issues in the last 6 months
    • 6 commits in the last 12 weeks
    • Last stable release on
    • 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

  • Behavior4/5

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

    Without annotations, the description provides key behavioral traits: it is non-waiting, returns extracted data, and returns empty if no emails. Additional details like error handling are absent but acceptable for a simple check tool.

    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, first sentence states action, second defines result. No wasted words, front-loaded with critical info.

    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 tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description adequately explains return format and usage. It is sufficient given the sibling context, though lacks details on handling non-existent inboxes.

    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% and the schema already describes the single required parameter. The tool description adds no extra detail about the parameter beyond repurposing the tool's context.

    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 checks a ZeroDrop inbox and returns recent emails with extracted OTPs/magic links or an empty list, distinguishing it from siblings like generate_inbox and wait_for_email.

    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?

    It implies use for immediate polling ('right now without waiting'), which contrasts with the likely waiting behavior of sibling wait_for_email, but does not explicitly state when not to use or mention alternatives.

    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?

    No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It discloses key behaviors: instant, local, no network request, and free tier limits. This provides good transparency for a simple tool.

    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 concise sentences that front-load purpose and provide essential usage guidance. 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 no output schema, the description still explains how to use the result (call wait_for_email) and mentions limitations (30-minute retention). Could explicitly state return format but is sufficient for a simple tool.

    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?

    Only one optional parameter 'prefix' with schema description. The tool description does not add extra meaning beyond the schema. Since schema coverage is 100%, baseline 3 is appropriate.

    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 generates a disposable email inbox for testing signups, OTP verification, etc. It distinguishes from sibling tools by indicating that after generating, one should call wait_for_email to read what arrives.

    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 explains when to use it (testing signups, etc.) and explicitly references wait_for_email for reading. It also mentions free tier details (30-minute retention, no signup). It does not explicitly state when not to use it, but context is clear.

    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, description carries full burden. It discloses blocking behavior, email extraction, and timeout, providing full transparency for an agent to predict behavior.

    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?

    Three sentences, no fluff, front-loaded with core functionality. Every sentence adds value.

    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?

    No output schema, but description explains return value (email with extracted OTP/magic link). Also covers blocking and timeout, making it complete for a polling tool.

    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 100%, so baseline is 3. Description adds value by noting return behavior (OTP/magic link extraction) but does not elaborate on individual parameters beyond schema.

    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 waits for an email, returns it with OTP and magic link extracted, and distinguishes itself from siblings like check_inbox (non-blocking) and generate_inbox (creation).

    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 triggering a signup, login, or password-reset flow', providing clear context. It implies blocking behavior and mentions timeout, but does not explicitly state 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

zerodrop-mcp MCP server

Copy to your README.md:

Score Badge

zerodrop-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/zerodrop-dev/zerodrop-mcp'

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