keeploop_inboxOpen Keeploop's Inbox view: replies owed, today's events, monitors and recent mail Keeploop may show. Pick one to attach it to the conversation.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| days | Yes | ||
| note | Yes | ||
| events | Yes | ||
| threads | Yes | ||
| monitors | Yes | ||
| sections | Yes | ||
| needs_reply | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Output schema / $defs / InboxMonitor / properties / routesAdded value: +{
+ "items": {
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "title": "Routes",
+ "type": "array"
+}Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already establish read-only, non-destructive, closed-world behavior, so the description does not need to restate safety. It adds useful behavioral context by naming what the inbox surfaces ('replies owed, today's events, monitors and recent mail') and noting that Keeploop 'may show' these, but it does not clarify what 'attach it to the conversation' actually entails.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is two tight sentences with the resource and contents front-loaded before the follow-up action. Every sentence carries information and there is no boilerplate.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the low complexity, zero parameters, rich annotations, and an output schema, the description is nearly complete: it states the view and its contents. The main remaining gap is that 'Pick one to attach it to the conversation' is not further specified, leaving the attachment flow slightly ambiguous.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool takes zero parameters, so there are no parameter semantics to explain. The baseline for a no-parameter tool is 4, and the description correctly does not invent parameter details.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description gives a specific verb and resource ('Open Keeploop's Inbox view') and lists the view's contents, so an agent can tell broadly what the tool does. It does not explicitly differentiate the inbox from siblings like show_today, list_monitors, or search_mail, which keeps it from a 5.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The phrase 'Pick one to attach it to the conversation' implies the intended follow-up use once the inbox is open, but the description never says when to choose this tool over the many sibling list/show/search tools. Usage is implied rather than explicit.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.