Skip to main content
Glama

MisarMail MCP Server

by io.github.Misar-AI

get_integration

Read-onlyIdempotent

Get one integration in full: its configuration, the scopes it was granted, and the result of its last sync.

Use it to diagnose an integration that list_integrations shows as unhealthy, or to check which scopes were granted before relying on a capability. Covers a single integration — list_integrations gives the overview.

Reads only; it does not re-run a sync or change any setting. Requires an API key. The response describes what the integration is permitted to do, which is not the same as what it has successfully done — read the last sync result for that.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
integration_idYesIntegration ID

Schema Changelog

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

  1. First observed

TDQS

A4.5/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Beyond the readOnlyHint and idempotentHint annotations, the description adds concrete behavioral guarantees: it reads only, does not re-run a sync, and does not change any setting. It also clarifies that the response indicates permissions, not actual success, which is a valuable nuance.

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 well-structured with a clear primary statement, usage guidance, and clarifying caveats. It is slightly verbose but every sentence adds value, so it remains efficient and readable.

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?

The description adequately explains what the response contains (configuration, scopes, last sync result) and notes the read-only behavior. Since no output schema is provided, these details are sufficient for an agent to understand the tool's outcome. It could be slightly more explicit about the response format, but overall it is complete.

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?

The only parameter, integration_id, is described in the schema as 'Integration ID' which is clear. The tool description does not add further detail, but given the schema coverage is 100% for a simple ID, no additional explanation is necessary. Baseline score for high schema coverage 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 it retrieves a single integration's full details (configuration, scopes, last sync result) and explicitly contrasts with list_integrations, which provides an overview. The verb 'Get' and resource 'integration' are specific, and the distinction removes ambiguity.

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?

It provides explicit use cases: diagnosing unhealthy integrations from list_integrations and checking granted scopes before relying on a capability. It also clarifies what it does not do (re-run syncs, change settings), guiding appropriate invocation.

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