Skip to main content
Glama

Postmark

by io.github.pipeworx-io

Server

server
Read-onlyIdempotent

Fetch configuration and metadata for the current Postmark server, including name, color, delivery settings, bounce/spam threshold, and message stream settings.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
IDNoServer identifier
NameNoServer name
ColorNoServer color in dashboard
ApiTokensNoList of API tokens for this server
TrackLinksNoLink tracking setting (None, HtmlAndText, HtmlOnly, TextOnly)
TrackOpensNoWhether open tracking is enabled
OpenHookUrlNoOpen tracking webhook URL if configured
SpamHookUrlNoSpam complaint webhook URL if configured
ClickHookUrlNoClick tracking webhook URL if configured
BounceHookUrlNoBounce webhook URL if configured
InboundDomainNoInbound domain for receiving emails
InboundHookUrlNoInbound webhook URL if configured
TrackingDomainNoCustom tracking domain
DeliveryHookUrlNoDelivery webhook URL if configured
RawEmailEnabledNoWhether raw email API is enabled
SmtpApiActivatedNoWhether SMTP API is activated
PostFirstOpenOnlyNoPost only first open

Schema Changelog

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

  1. First observed

TDQS

A4.5/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, so the description adds value by enumerating the specific attributes returned (name, color, delivery settings, bounce/spam threshold, message stream settings). This gives the agent useful context beyond the annotation flags, though it doesn't discuss return format or potential API subtleties.

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 entire description is a single, well-structured sentence that front-loads the verb and resource, then lists specific examples. No wasted words or redundant restatements of the name.

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?

For a simple parameterless tool with an output schema, this description is complete. It tells the agent what the tool fetches and includes enough specifics about the contained data. The output schema handles return-value details, so no further description is needed.

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 there is no parameter schema to document. The description's enumeration of returned data compensates for any need to explain what the tool operates on. Baseline for no-parameter tools is 4, and no extra parameter details are required.

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 uses a specific verb ('Fetch') and clearly identifies the resource ('configuration and metadata for the current Postmark server'), listing concrete contents like delivery settings and bounce/spam threshold. This distinguishes it from sibling tools focused on bounces, messages, or delivery stats.

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?

The context is clear: use this tool to retrieve the current Postmark server's configuration and metadata. It doesn't explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it, but for a simple read-only config fetch, the implied usage is sufficient and no exclusions are needed.

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

All Postmark 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

B3/5.0
Disambiguation2/5

The tool set mixes multiple domains (Postmark email, Pipeworx data queries, Polymarket betting, memory utilities) with several overlapping tools. ask_pipeworx and ask_pipeworx_beta are essentially identical, send/send_batch and bounces/bounce are similar, and multiple polymarket analysis tools (polymarket_arbitrage, polymarket_edges, polymarket_edge_tracker) could be confused. Despite detailed descriptions, the sheer number of query and analysis tools increases the chance of misselection.

Naming Consistency3/5

All tool names use lowercase_with_underscores, so the casing is consistent. However, there is no uniform verb_noun pattern: some start with verbs (ask, send, bounce, resolve, validate), while others are noun phrases (server, bounces, recent_alerts, entity_profile). This mixed semantic structure makes it less predictable, but the names are still readable.

Tool Count2/5

41 tools is far above the typical well-scoped range of 3-15. The server combines multiple unrelated domains—email, data lookup, prediction markets, memory, and subscriptions—resulting in a heavyweight and unfocused surface. Most of the tools would be better split into separate, purpose-specific servers.

Completeness2/5

For a server named Postmark, the email side is incomplete: there is no update server configuration, message stream management, or inbound email handling. The Pipeworx data tools provide good read coverage but lack write/management operations for entities. The inclusion of unrelated tools makes the surface feel arbitrary rather than complete for any single domain.

Resources