Refine Job Search

inbox.dismiss

DestructiveIdempotent

Dismiss inbox items you are not acting on (also marks the mail read in Gmail)

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`ids`	Yes	Inbox item ids to dismiss
`confirmed`	Yes	Must be true after the user confirms dismissing these items and marking their mail read

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`data`	Yes
`meta`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed4 schema fields changedOct 22, 2026
- removedOutput schema / properties / meta / properties / next_page / anyOf
```
Removed value: -[
-  {
-    "type": "string"
-  },
-  {
-    "type": "null"
-  }
-]
```
- addedOutput schema / properties / meta / properties / next_page / type
```
Added value: +[
+  "string",
+  "null"
+]
```
- removedOutput schema / properties / meta / properties / total_count / anyOf
```
Removed value: -[
-  {
-    "type": "number"
-  },
-  {
-    "type": "null"
-  }
-]
```
- addedOutput schema / properties / meta / properties / total_count / type
```
Added value: +[
+  "number",
+  "null"
+]
```

Changed3 schema fields changedAug 26, 2026

addedInput schema / properties / confirmed

Added value: +{
+  "const": true,
+  "description": "Must be true after the user confirms dismissing these items and marking their mail read",
+  "type": "boolean"
+}

addedInput schema / properties / ids / minItems
```
Added value: +1
```

changedInput schema / required

Previous value: -[
-  "ids"
-]New value: +[
+  "ids",
+  "confirmed"
+]

AddedAug 23, 2026

TDQS

A3.8/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint, idempotentHint, and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description earns credit by disclosing a real side effect beyond annotations—that it also marks the mail read in Gmail—which the agent could not otherwise infer. It omits reversibility/undo (an inbox.undo sibling exists).

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?

A single, tight sentence that front-loads the core action and appends the material side effect in parentheses. No wasted content.

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?

With rich annotations, full schema coverage, and an output schema, the remaining burden is light. The description covers the action and its key side effect but leaves the acknowledge/decline/mark_read disambiguation to the agent, a minor gap for a 2-param tool.

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% and both parameters (ids, confirmed) are documented in the schema, including the confirmation gate. The description adds no additional parameter semantics, so the baseline 3 applies.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb and resource ('Dismiss inbox items') plus a side effect ('marks the mail read in Gmail'). However, it does not differentiate from closely overlapping siblings like inbox.acknowledge, inbox.decline, or inbox.mark_read, which an agent could easily confuse with dismissing.

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?

'Items you are not acting on' implies a usage context, but with several near-identical siblings (acknowledge, decline, mark_read, recommendations.dismiss) the description offers no explicit when-not or alternative naming. Usage is only implied, not routed.

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

All Refine Job Search tools Inspect

Try in Browser

Pay for results, not tokens.Fund a bounty. Let AI agents compete and collaborate to solve your problems.agentbounties.appAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources

Need Help?