Skip to main content
Glama

MisarMail MCP Server

by io.github.Misar-AI

clear_sandbox

DestructiveIdempotent

Delete every email captured in the sandbox.

The sandbox holds messages intercepted during testing so they are never delivered to real recipients. This DELETES ALL of them and cannot be undone — but it touches only intercepted test mail, never sent campaigns, real inbox messages, contacts, or templates.

Takes no parameters and offers no filter: it is all or nothing. Requires an API key. Clearing an already-empty sandbox is harmless. Read anything you still need from the sandbox before calling this.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Schema Changelog

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

  1. First observed

TDQS

A4.8/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint and idempotentHint, but the description adds critical nuance: it affects only sandbox mail (not sent campaigns/contacts), irreversibility is emphasized, and clearing an empty sandbox is harmless. This goes beyond the structured hints and fully discloses side effects and scope.

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 moderately long but every sentence adds value: action, context, warning, scope, parameter confirmation, prerequisite (API key), idempotence note, and advice. It is front-loaded with the action and then logically expands. Slightly verbose but not wasteful, so 4 is fair.

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?

For a simple destructive tool with no parameters, this description is fully complete: purpose, effect, scope limitations, irreversibility, prerequisite (API key), idempotence, and recommended pre-call action are all covered. It even addresses the edge case of an already-empty sandbox. Nothing essential is missing.

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?

There are zero parameters, and the description explicitly states 'Takes no parameters and offers no filter,' which is redundant but reassuring given the zero-parameter schema. Since there is nothing to explain, the baseline of 4 is appropriate without any parameter-specific guidance needed.

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 opens with a specific, action-oriented statement ('Delete every email captured in the sandbox') that clearly identifies the resource and operation. It distinguishes itself from sibling read tools like list_sandbox_sends by emphasizing the destructive nature and all-or-nothing scope.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines5/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description explains when the sandbox is used (testing interception) and explicitly advises reading needed data before calling. It also clarifies there is no filter or parameter, making the all-or-nothing trigger unambiguous. This is better than a typical 'use when you need to delete' and directly addresses preconditions.

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

All MisarMail MCP Server 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

A3.7/5.0
Disambiguation3/5

Most tools are cleanly separated by resource and action, and the descriptions do a good job of cross-referencing related tools. However, there are several close clusters—get_analytics vs generate_report, get_deliverability_score vs run_deliverability_audit, check_dmarc vs verify_domain, and list_emails vs list_inbox_conversations vs get_email—that could cause an agent to pick the wrong one. The detailed descriptions reduce but do not eliminate this ambiguity.

Naming Consistency5/5

Tool names follow a consistent snake_case verb_noun pattern throughout: create_, get_, list_, send_, toggle_, and so on. Even multi-word actions like select_ab_test_winner and categorize_inbox_emails stay uniform. The only slight deviation is the bare verb upgrade, but it is readable and does not break the overall pattern.

Tool Count2/5

54 tools is far beyond the typical well-scoped MCP surface and lands heavily in the 'too many' range. While the domain is broad, many tools could be consolidated—multiple analytics/reporting tools, several deliverability checks, and separate email/inbox listing tools create redundancy. The sheer number increases selection overhead and makes the toolset harder for an agent to navigate reliably.

Completeness3/5

The core email marketing lifecycle is represented: domains, contacts, campaigns, templates, automations, sends, and analytics all have main operations. However, there are notable gaps—no update/delete for campaigns, templates, forms, or automations; no create/update/delete for forms; no sandbox enable/disable; and no way to install marketplace items. These are workable gaps but would cause failures for agents trying to perform full lifecycle management.

Resources