Skip to main content
Glama

MisarMail MCP Server

create_contact

Add a single contact. Adding a contact records consent to email them — only add addresses that opted in, or the send will damage sender reputation and may breach CAN-SPAM/GDPR.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
tagsNoSegmentation tags
emailYesContact email address
phoneNoPhone number (max 50 chars)
sourceNoWhere this contact came from (max 100 chars)
companyNoCompany name (max 150 chars)
job_titleNoJob title (max 100 chars)
last_nameNoLast name (max 100 chars)
first_nameNoFirst name (max 100 chars)
custom_fieldsNoCustom key-value attributes

Schema Changelog

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

  1. First observed

TDQS

A4.8/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

The description implies a write operation ('Add') and mentions a side effect ('records consent'), but does not describe the return value or error behavior. The annotations (readOnlyHint: false) confirm mutation, but idempotency and reversibility are not addressed.

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?

The description is two concise sentences, front-loaded with the primary action, and includes essential context without unnecessary verbosity.

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?

The description covers the core action, relevant constraints (consent requirement), and legal implications. Combined with the complete parameter schema and annotations, the context is sufficient for correct usage.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters5/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

All 9 parameters have descriptions with types and constraints (e.g., max lengths for phone, source, company, job_title, last_name, first_name). The descriptions are clear enough for an agent to understand each parameter's purpose.

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 'Add a single contact' with a specific verb and resource, and distinguishes it from sibling tools like update_contact and list_contacts.

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 provides explicit usage guidance: 'only add addresses that opted in' and warns about sender reputation and legal compliance (CAN-SPAM/GDPR), which helps the agent decide when to use the tool.

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

Try in Browser

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.