mailbox

send_facility_message

Send a message to the Austin HQ operator managing your mailbox. Facility routing is automatic. Messages appear in the shared conversation visible to you, the renter, and the facility. Optionally link the message to a specific package or action request for context.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`body`	Yes	Message text (1-5000 characters).
`package_id`	No	Optional: link this message to a specific package for context.
`action_request_id`	No	Optional: link this message to an action request for context.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`result`	Yes	Sent facility message identifiers and body.

TDQS

A4.3/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, etc. The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond these, such as automatic routing and that messages appear in a shared conversation visible to the renter, which informs the agent of potential visibility consequences. No contradictions with annotations.

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 composed of four short, purposeful sentences: purpose, routing, visibility, and optional linking. Every sentence conveys unique, necessary information without redundancy, making it highly efficient.

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 simple tool with 3 well-documented parameters and an output schema, the description covers all necessary aspects: target, automatic routing, shared visibility, and optional linking. No critical information is missing for correct invocation.

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 the baseline is 3. The description's note on optional linking to package/action request essentially restates the schema descriptions, adding no significant semantic value beyond what the schema already provides.

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 opens with a clear verb+resource: 'Send a message to the Austin HQ operator managing your mailbox.' It distinguishes from siblings by noting automatic facility routing and the shared conversation context, making it distinct from tools like send_outbound_mail or get_facility_messages.

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 gives clear context: it is for messaging the facility operator, with routing automatic and messages visible to all parties. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the usage scenario is easily inferred from the target and visibility statement.

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?