mailbox

list_outbound_mail

Read-onlyIdempotent

List outbound mail jobs with status tracking. Returns mail ID, recipient, mail class, status, cost, timestamps, and failure metadata. Filter by status, created_at date range, or search recipient/address/tracking/agent notes.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`q`	No	Search recipient name, address lines, city/state/ZIP, tracking number, or agent notes.
`limit`	No	Maximum number of mail jobs to return (1-100). Defaults to 20.
`offset`	No	Number of mail jobs to skip for pagination. Defaults to 0.
`status`	No	Filter by mail status. "pending_approval" = awaiting human approval, "submitted" = queued for facility, "ready" = printed and ready to mail, "mailed" = in transit, "delivered" = confirmed delivery, "failed" = failure bucket, "cancelled" = cancelled before mailing. Use carrier_delivery_failed/failure_stage to identify mailed carrier delivery failures.
`test_mode`	No	Filter sandbox/test records. Defaults to the key environment for agent-scoped keys; member keys can pass true or false explicitly.
`created_after`	No	Filter mail created at or after this ISO 8601 datetime or YYYY-MM-DD date.
`created_before`	No	Filter mail created at or before this ISO 8601 datetime or YYYY-MM-DD date. Date-only values include the whole UTC day.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`result`	Yes	Outbound mail job summaries.

TDQS

A4.1/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds valuable context by enumerating the returned fields (mail ID, recipient, mail class, status, cost, timestamps, failure metadata) and the filtering capabilities. This goes beyond the annotations and helps the agent understand what to expect from the response, especially the failure metadata which could be critical.

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 description is three sentences, front-loading the core purpose and immediately listing return fields and filters. There is zero filler or redundant information. Every sentence provides distinct information, making it efficient and easy to parse.

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?

Given that an output schema exists, the return format is documented separately. Annotations cover the read-only/idempotent/destructive safety profile. The description covers the purpose, return fields, and filtering dimensions, which are the key operational aspects. Nothing an agent needs to call this tool correctly is missing.

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 all 7 parameters are thoroughly documented in the schema itself. The description summarizes the filters (status, date range, search) but does not add new semantics beyond what the schema already provides. The baseline of 3 applies since the schema does the heavy lifting, and the description adds marginal value by grouping related filters.

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 starts with 'List outbound mail jobs with status tracking.' This clearly states the verb (list), resource (outbound mail jobs), and purpose (status tracking). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like get_outbound_mail (which implies single retrieval) and send_outbound_mail (creation). The specificity is high and unambiguous.

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 explains what the tool does and its filtering options, but it doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_outbound_mail or list_inbound_mail. The usage context is implied but not contrasted with siblings. It provides no exclusions or explicit guidance on selecting this tool over others.

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

All mailbox tools Inspect

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

A4.1/5.0

Disambiguation4/5

Most tools map cleanly to distinct resources and actions, forming clear list/get pairs for outbound mail, inbound mail, and postal threads. The main ambiguity is between get_facility_messages and list_facility_conversations, which both target the same Austin HQ conversation, and get_mailbox versus list_inbound_forwarding_addresses are closely related address lookups.

Naming Consistency5/5

All tool names use a consistent lowercase snake_case verb_noun pattern with familiar verbs like get, list, send, cancel, create, update, and propose. There are no mixed naming conventions or vague generic names.

Tool Count3/5

19 tools is within the 16-25 range that feels heavy for a single-domain MCP server. The broad outbound/inbound lifecycle, threads, facility messaging, MAILBOX.md, usage, and webhook support justify much of the count, but a few tools such as the facility conversation list/get pair could reasonably be consolidated.

Completeness4/5

The tool surface covers the core physical mail workflow well: test and real outbound sends, cancellation, inbound forwarding and retrieval, postal threads, facility communication, MAILBOX.md sync, usage, and webhooks. Minor gaps exist around webhook inspection/removal and direct document download, but these are unlikely to cause agent dead-ends in the main workflows.

Resources

Need Help?