Skip to main content
Glama

proofite

by com.proofite

Create a topic inbox

create_source

Create a new topic inbox: a themed container with its own dedicated email address (subscribe newsletters to it), which can hold RSS feeds and monitored web searches. This is how you add a whole new subject to someone's information diet.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
nameYesShort name, e.g. "AI research" or "Local news"
descriptionNoOptional brief: what the reader expects from this inbox and what to skip — the editor reads it at every briefing

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.

  1. Changed1 schema field changed
    • changedInput schema / properties / description / description
      Previous value: -"Optional: what belongs in here — it also guides the editor"New value: +"Optional brief: what the reader expects from this inbox and what to skip — the editor reads it at every briefing"
  2. First observed

TDQS

A4.2/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already mark readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the bar is lower. The description adds the key semantic that this creates a container with its own email address and is the top-level 'add a subject' operation. It doesn't discuss failure modes or permissions, but for a create operation the core behavior is effectively disclosed.

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 no filler. The first sentence delivers the core action; the second adds conceptual context and purpose. Front-loaded and economical.

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 two-parameter creation tool with no output schema and no nested objects, the description covers what the resource is, how it relates to the information diet, and what it can contain. It does not address duplicates or return values, but these are not required for a correctly-scoped create operation.

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%, and the parameter descriptions are already specific (short name with real examples, optional brief with reader expectations). The description does not add parameter-level detail, so baseline 3 applies.

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?

States the verb and resource explicitly: 'Create a new topic inbox'. Expands with concrete attributes (dedicated email address, can hold RSS feeds and monitored web searches), which clearly distinguishes it from siblings like add_feed and add_web_search. The closing phrase places it as the top-level action for adding a subject to an information diet.

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 phrase 'This is how you add a whole new subject to someone's information diet' provides clear context for when to use the tool. However, it does not name alternatives or exclusions; siblings like add_feed and add_web_search are not referenced, so the agent must infer routing from the resource description rather than explicit guidance.

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

All proofite toolsInspect
Try in Browser
RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

A4.2/5.0
Disambiguation4/5

Most tools target distinct operations (e.g., add_feed vs. remove_feed, get_source vs. list_sources). However, there is some ambiguity between correct_briefing and tune_topic (both adjust content based on user feedback) and between request_deep_dive and correct_briefing (both can trigger deeper investigation). The descriptions help, but an agent could misselect.

Naming Consistency5/5

Tool names follow a very consistent verb_noun pattern (e.g., add_feed, create_source, generate_briefing, list_sources). All use snake_case with clear, descriptive verbs and nouns. No mixing of conventions.

Tool Count4/5

With 27 tools, the server covers a rich domain of news feed management, briefing generation, and user preferences. This is slightly above the typical sweet spot but still reasonable given the complexity. Each tool serves a distinct purpose; the count is justified.

Completeness5/5

The tool set provides full lifecycle coverage: sources can be created, read, updated, and deleted; feeds and searches can be added and removed; briefings can be generated, listed, read, rated, and corrected; deep dives and read-later items are supported. There are no obvious gaps—the domain is thoroughly covered.

Resources