Skip to main content
Glama

agent-cold-email

infrastructure_status

Read-only

Warmup + provisioning progress per mailbox. New mailboxes are ramp-limited server-side: 5 sends/day week 1 rising to 40/day after 4 weeks; current dailyCap for each mailbox is in the response below — ramp caps permit CAPPED sending from day 1, never zero until fully warmed. Returns { domains, mailboxes, sendReady, mailboxHealth[], messages[], nextSteps }; each mailbox: warmupDay, dailyCap, sentToday, sendReady, delivStatus (healthy/throttled/paused), complaint/bounce/softBounce rates (first-party measured), vendorReputationScore + vendorPlacementRate (VENDOR-REPORTED, not first-party measurements — the control loop uses local signals only; BOTH ARE null whenever the provider does not report them, which is the normal case today, so treat null as 'not measured' and never as zero), lastPolledAt. Per-mailbox sendReady is a FULLY-RAMPED flag, NOT a send gate — a mailbox below full ramp still sends, capped at its own dailyCap; sendReady only says warmup has finished, so read dailyCap/sentToday for actual send capacity, never sendReady alone. The top-level sendReady is the AND across ALL mailboxes (true only once every one has finished ramping) — for whether THIS mailbox can send right now, the per-mailbox flag next to it is the one that matters, not the top-level one. Vendor-pool warmup (the underlying reputation-building the provider runs) is FEED-INVISIBLE by design: nothing in this response surfaces the vendor's own warmup internals — dailyCap/warmupDay/sendReady here are this platform's own ramp schedule, computed independently of whatever the vendor is doing in its pool, so do not expect a vendor-side warmup event to show up here. messages[] surfaces system notices this account should act on (e.g. a setup step that needs a retry, a mailbox credential that just went live) — each has kind, severity ('info' = resolves on its own | 'action_required' = nothing progresses until you act, and acting works | 'operator_pending' = the platform has stopped and nothing you change will restart it, but an operator can clear the blocker and then retrying the SAME call with the SAME idempotency key completes it — keep your inputs as they are and do not give up | 'terminal' = the platform has STOPPED, retrying will never help and only a human can move it — the actionHint names contact_operator), body, actionHint (structured — e.g. which tool + idempotencyKey to retry with), createdAt; poll this alongside the mailbox fields — capped at the newest 5 (operator replies sort first, so system churn cannot evict one, but a 6th DISTINCT unacked message of either kind can still fall off this preview; use list_messages for the complete, paginated history). Reading them here does NOT mark them read — only an explicit ack_message call sets readAt. Unacked operator messages sort first here, then system notices newest-first, so a human reply is never pushed out of the 5 by system churn; list_messages is the full paginated surface. nextSteps names what this account should do next — see setup_infrastructure's description for the discriminated shape. Use account/metrics for account-wide rollups.

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 only declare readOnlyHint=true, so the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It thoroughly covers ramp limits, vendor-reported null semantics, feed-invisible vendor warmup, message severity/action semantics, idempotent retry behavior, and the fact that reading messages here does not mark them read. No contradiction with annotations.

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 long but front-loaded with the core purpose and densely packs necessary caveats. There is minor redundancy around message ordering and list_messages being the full surface, but the structure is logical and each major section earns its place given the complexity and lack of an output schema.

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?

With no output schema and an empty input schema, the description must fully explain the return shape and semantics, and it does: domains, mailboxes, sendReady, mailboxHealth, messages, nextSteps, plus per-field meanings and edge cases. It also names related tools for follow-up actions, making it complete for an agent to select and invoke correctly.

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?

The tool has zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description adds no parameter semantics because none exist, but it richly documents the response fields and their meanings, which is the relevant semantic content for this parameterless tool.

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 verb+resource: 'Warmup + provisioning progress per mailbox.' It clearly distinguishes itself from siblings by naming account/metrics for account-wide rollups and list_messages for full message history, so the agent understands exactly what this tool reports.

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 gives explicit when-to-use and when-not-to-use guidance: poll it alongside mailbox fields, use account/metrics for account-wide rollups, use list_messages for complete history, and use ack_message to mark messages read. It also explains that sendReady is not a send gate, preventing misuse.

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

A4.4/5.0
Disambiguation4/5

Most tools have distinct purposes, but pause/pause_all and metrics/campaign_results/list_campaigns have overlapping scopes. Descriptions clarify the differences, so ambiguity is low.

Naming Consistency4/5

Uses snake_case with a mix of verb_noun (list_campaigns) and noun_verb (infrastructure_status), but patterns are predictable. Minor inconsistency between setup_infrastructure and infrastructure_status.

Tool Count4/5

25 tools is at the upper bound for a focused server, but the domain (cold email automation) justifies the number. Each tool covers a distinct aspect of the workflow.

Completeness4/5

Covers account management, campaigns, leads, threads, infrastructure, webhooks, and dashboards. Missing resume for paused campaigns and delete for campaigns, but core operations are present.