Refine Job Search

inbox.draft_reply

Read-onlyIdempotent

Generate an AI reply draft for an inbox item. Returns HTML for review; it does not send anything.

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`kind`	Yes	decline politely passes; interested asks to continue the conversation
`item_id`	Yes	Inbox item id

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"
+]
```
AddedAug 23, 2026

TDQS

A4/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds genuinely new information: the output is HTML for review and nothing is sent, clarifying the side-effect profile in concrete terms beyond the hints.

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?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with purpose, with zero redundant or filler text.

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?

For a simple two-parameter, read-only tool with rich annotations and an output schema, the description covers purpose, output format, and side effects. Only minor gaps (e.g., what the AI does with 'kind') remain.

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% and the enum description for 'kind' already explains decline vs interested. The description adds nothing about either parameter, so 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: 'Generate an AI reply draft for an inbox item.' The clause 'it does not send anything' implicitly distinguishes it from inbox.send_reply, though the sibling is not named explicitly.

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 draft-for-review / does-not-send framing gives a clear usage context that routes the agent away from inbox.send_reply. No explicit when-not conditions or named alternatives are given, so it stops short of a 5.

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?