Skip to main content
Glama

MinuteMail

by io.github.minutemailco

Create identity

identities.create

Create a mock identity bound to a mailbox for OAuth flow testing.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
nameNoDisplay name. Optional.
claimsNoCustom claims (e.g. role, plan) merged into the ID token and userinfo. Custom-provider clients only — rejected for google/github/apple/facebook. Optional.
clientIdYesOAuth client ID the identity belongs to
usernameNoIdentity username. Optional.
avatarUrlNoAvatar URL. Optional.
emailVerifiedNoValue of the email_verified claim issued for this identity. Optional.
mailboxAddressYesMailbox address the identity is linked to (must exist)

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
idYesIdentity ID
nameNoDisplay name
clientIdYesOAuth client ID the identity belongs to
usernameNoIdentity username
avatarUrlNoAvatar URL
mailboxAddressYesMailbox address the identity is linked to

Schema Changelog

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

  1. First observed

TDQS

A4/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already communicate the mutation profile (readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false), and the description adds the 'mock' and 'OAuth flow testing' context. It does not, however, describe further behavioral details such as validation, uniqueness, or side effects beyond what the schema states.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence that names the action, object, binding, and purpose with no filler or repetition of the title.

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 create operation with a full output schema and 100% parameter coverage, nothing essential is missing. It could be slightly richer about prerequisites or limitations, but the schema and annotations fill most gaps.

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%, so the schema fully documents all seven parameters; the description adds no parameter-level meaning and does not need to. 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?

The description names a concrete action ('Create'), a specific resource ('mock identity'), and binds it to a mailbox for OAuth flow testing. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling identity operations (list, get, update, delete) and from mailboxes.create.

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?

It gives clear context: this tool is for OAuth flow testing using a mock identity that must be linked to an existing mailbox. It does not explicitly list exclusions or alternative tools, so it stops short of a 5.

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

All MinuteMail 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

A3.6/5.0
Disambiguation4/5

The resource namespaces make most tools easy to tell apart, and each action has a clear target. A couple of boundary cases exist, such as attachments.add versus mails.inject, since both relate to putting files on a simulated email, but descriptions mostly resolve the ambiguity.

Naming Consistency5/5

Every tool follows the same resource.action convention, and the action verbs are predictable across the set, including delete_bulk and rotate_secret. The pattern is uniform even across different resource families, making the API very predictable.

Tool Count2/5

With 40 tools, the surface is quite large for an MCP server, even though the namespaces are clean. Many singular and bulk delete variants could be combined or expressed as parameters to reduce the count, so the set feels heavier than it needs to be.

Completeness4/5

The server covers the main lifecycle needs for mailboxes, emails, attachments, archived mailboxes, domains, identities, OAuth clients, and team management. Minor gaps remain, such as no mailbox update/rename, no manual archive action, and no invitation acceptance endpoint, but agents can work around these.

Resources