getMailboxUsage: Get disk usage per mailbox in bytes, for quota display alongside the plan's quotaBytes. Requires authentication.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| sessionKey | No | Session key (osk_...) returned by checkDeviceLoginStatus. Pass it on every call when logged in via the in-chat device flow; omit when connected via OAuth. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare the operation read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds the authentication requirement, which is useful context not present in annotations, but it does not disclose result shape or behavior on unauthenticated calls. This is acceptable but not rich.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is one concise sentence that front-loads the action and scoping. The redundant 'getMailboxUsage:' prefix is minor and does not meaningfully hurt clarity.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a low-complexity read-only tool with one optional parameter and complete schema coverage, the description provides enough context: what is returned (per-mailbox bytes), why it is used (quota display), and the auth requirement. It could name the alternative quota tool, but nothing critical is missing.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100% for the single optional sessionKey parameter, so the schema fully documents the parameter. The description adds no parameter-specific detail, matching the baseline for high schema coverage.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action (get disk usage), the resource scope (per mailbox), the unit (bytes), and the intended use (quota display alongside the plan's quotaBytes). This makes it readily distinguishable from quota-related siblings like getMailboxQuote.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The phrase 'for quota display alongside the plan's quotaBytes' implies a use case, but the description does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over alternatives or when not to use it. Usage context is present but left to inference.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Most tools target distinct resource-action pairs, but there are several overlapping clusters: six domain-suggestion tools (addPrefixToDomain, addSuffixToDomain, generateDomainSuggestions, bulkDomainSuggestions, spinDomainWords, suggestAlternatives) and overlapping account-info tools (getMyProfile, getAccountSummary, getRecentActivity, getMyAuditLogs). Descriptions help, but with 105 tools an agent will regularly face near-identical choices.
The dominant convention is verbNoun camelCase (createContact, listDnsRecords, updateNameservers), which is readable and predictable. Deviations exist in the osirApp* and osirSite* families, where the noun precedes the verb, and a few names like suggestAlternatives and spinDomainWords break the pattern.
105 tools is far beyond a coherent MCP server surface; even if the platform genuinely spans domains, DNS, email, VPS, billing, and app hosting, this should be split into focused servers. Many tools are single-purpose getters that add selection overhead rather than earning their place as one integrated set.
The covered services have broad CRUD/lifecycle coverage: contacts, DNS, hosts, domains, email, VPS, SSH keys, invoices, and Osir apps all have create/read/update/delete paths. Some registrar-specific operations (e.g., contact reassignment after registration, domain deletion/redemption) are missing, and the sheer sprawl makes coverage hard to verify.