mailbox

propose_mailbox_md_edit

Propose changes to the renter's MAILBOX.md instructions with reasoning. The renter will see your suggestion in their dashboard and can accept, reject, or modify it. Use this when you observe patterns that could be codified into standing instructions.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`reason`	Yes	Why this change is suggested (e.g. "Observed 5 Amazon packages this week, all forwarded manually — adding auto-forward rule").
`suggested_content`	Yes	Full proposed MAILBOX.md content (max 10,000 chars). Must include the complete document, not just the diff.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`result`	Yes	Created MAILBOX.md suggestion record.

TDQS

A4.3/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond annotations: the renter sees the suggestion in their dashboard and can accept, reject, or modify it. This clarifies that the tool does not directly apply changes but proposes them, which is not disclosed by the annotations (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false).

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 consists of two concise sentences: the first states the purpose and workflow, the second gives usage context. Every sentence earns its place with no unnecessary wordage.

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 the tool's moderate complexity, the schema covers parameters, the output schema covers return values, and the annotations cover safety profile. The description effectively explains the purpose, the proposal workflow, and when to use, making it complete for an agent to invoke correctly.

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 coverage is 100% with both parameters clearly described (reason and suggested_content). The description itself does not elaborate on parameters, but the schema already provides sufficient semantics, so a baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 clearly states the action: 'Propose changes to the renter's MAILBOX.md instructions' with a specific verb and resource. It also distinguishes from siblings by emphasizing the proposal nature (renter can accept/reject/modify), unlike direct write or rule-creation tools.

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 description provides explicit guidance: 'Use this when you observe patterns that could be codified into standing instructions.' This is clear context for when to use, though it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use.

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?