Skip to main content
Glama

Emails waiting for a reply

list_to_answer
Read-only

Received emails BumbleBox classified as needing a reply and still in the inbox, newest first.

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "list_to_answer"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
limitNo

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
emailsYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observed

TDQS

A3.5/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare this is a read-only, closed-world operation. The description adds useful behavioral context beyond annotations: results are limited to received emails BumbleBox classified as needing a reply, restricted to the inbox, and ordered newest first. It does not explain pagination or limit behavior, but the core filtering and ordering traits are disclosed.

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 efficient sentence with no filler. The most important scoping details (received, needing reply, still in inbox, newest first) are front-loaded.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness3/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be described, and annotations cover safety. However, for a one-parameter list tool with 0% schema description coverage, the description leaves the only parameter completely unexplained, which is a clear completeness gap.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters2/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0% and the single 'limit' parameter is never mentioned in the description. The schema constrains it to 1-100, but the description does not clarify what 'limit' controls, whether it is a page size, or what the default behavior is when omitted.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb ('list') and resource ('received emails') with clear filtering scope: classified as needing a reply and still in the inbox, sorted newest first. It does not explicitly name sibling tools like search_emails or list_replies_to_validate, so differentiation is implied through scope rather than stated.

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?

The description implies when the tool is useful (finding received emails that need a reply), but it never explicitly says when to use this versus alternatives such as search_emails or list_replies_to_validate. Usage is inferable but not guided.

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.