mailbox

update_webhook

Idempotent

Configure webhook endpoint URL and event subscriptions for real-time notifications. Outbound events are mail.pending_approval, mail.submitted, mail.ready, mail.mailed, mail.delivered, mail.failed, and mail.cancelled. Canonical physical-custody events are inbound.received and inbound.scan_available. The endpoint must use HTTPS and respond with 2xx within 10 seconds.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`enabled`	No	Set to false to pause webhook delivery without removing the URL.
`event_types`	No	Array of event types to subscribe to (e.g. ["mail.mailed", "inbound.received"]). Empty array disables all events.
`webhook_url`	No	HTTPS URL to receive webhook POST requests. Must respond with 2xx within 10 seconds.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`result`	Yes	Webhook configuration status.

TDQS

A4.1/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations indicate idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, and the description adds important behavioral context: HTTPS requirement, 10-second response window, pausing delivery via enabled field, and enumerating all event types. No contradiction 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.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by necessary details about events and endpoint requirements. It is mostly concise, though the list of event types could potentially be shortened by referring to 'mail lifecycle events' while still being clear.

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

Completeness4/5

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

Given the presence of an output schema, the description need not explain return values. It adequately covers the tool's configuration purpose, event subscription semantics, and endpoint constraints. However, it could mention idempotency behavior or whether updating one field resets others, though annotations partially cover idempotency.

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

Parameters4/5

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

Schema description coverage is 100%, and the description adds value by explaining the endpoint response requirements (HTTPS, 2xx, 10-second timeout) and event type semantics (mail lifecycle and inbound custody events), which are not in the schema descriptions.

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 a specific verb ('Configure') and resource ('webhook endpoint URL and event subscriptions') and clearly distinguishes from sibling tools (none of which mention webhooks or real-time notifications).

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 use for webhook configuration but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives or when not to use it. It lacks guidance on prerequisites or disambiguation from sibling tools like get_mailbox or list_outbound_mail, which handle different concerns.

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?