Skip to main content
Glama

MinuteMail

by io.github.minutemailco

Create mailbox

mailboxes.create

Create a new temporary mailbox. The domain defaults to the tenant's default domain; the owner is always the API key's owner.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
tagNoRecovery tag, required when recoverable is true.
domainNoMailbox domain. Defaults to the tenant default domain (e.g. minutemail.cc).
expiresInNoLifetime in minutes, 1-60. Omit for the service default TTL.
recoverableNoSet true to keep the mailbox recoverable after expiry (requires tag).
noExpirationNoSet true for a permanent mailbox (mutually exclusive with expiresIn).

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
idYesMailbox ID
aliasNoLocal part of the address
ownerNoOwner (tenant) ID
domainNoMailbox domain
addressYesFull mailbox address
createdAtNoCreation timestamp (RFC 3339)
expiresAtNoExpiry timestamp (RFC 3339); null when permanent
permanentNoWhether the mailbox never expires
recoverableNoWhether the mailbox can be recovered after expiry
messageCountNoNumber of mails in the mailbox

Schema Changelog

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

  1. First observed

TDQS

A4/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

The description adds behavioral context beyond annotations: the mailbox is temporary by default, the domain falls back to the tenant default, and the owner is always tied to the API key. Since annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false, and destructiveHint=false, this supplementary context is valuable and non-redundant.

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?

Two tight sentences, front-loaded with the core action, and each clause adds a distinct piece of information. No filler or repeated schema content.

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 an output schema and fully documented optional parameters, the description covers the important defaults and ownership semantics. The mutual exclusion between expiresIn and noExpiration is left to the schema, which is acceptable because schema coverage 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so every parameter is already documented. The description reinforces that domain defaults to the tenant default but does not explain tag, expiresIn, recoverable, or noExpiration beyond the schema. This is exactly the baseline-3 case.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Create a new temporary mailbox') that clearly distinguishes it from sibling operations like mailboxes.list, mailboxes.get, and mailboxes.delete. The qualifier 'temporary' aligns with the service default, and the rest of the sentence adds meaningful scope.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

No explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, nor a named alternative. The context about domain defaults and API-key ownership is helpful, but the agent must infer usage purely from the resource type and title rather than from stated conditions.

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