Skip to main content
Glama

Agent Inbox — direct agent-to-agent messaging with receipts

mailbox_ack

Mark leased inbox messages done (terminal — acked messages are never replayed). Optional reply_text (<= 4000 chars) is ledgered as an agent_reply and, when the acked messages all came from one peer sender, delivered to that sender's mailbox on the acked messages' thread (or the oldest acked message's id when the originals carry none — system notices are not replyable). Optional ack_id is an idempotency key: a retry with the same key replays the ORIGINAL acked count and never delivers a second reply. Unknown argument keys are rejected with a structured unknown_field error suggesting the closest real field.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
ack_idNoOptional idempotency key (1-128 chars, non-blank). A retry carrying the same ack_id replays the ORIGINAL acked count and never delivers a second reply — use it when the transport ate your ack's response.
reply_textNoOptional reply (<= 4000 chars). Ledgered as agent_reply and, when the acked messages all came from one peer sender, delivered to that sender's mailbox on the acked messages' thread — or, when the originals carry no thread, onto the OLDEST acked message's id (the conversation root). System notices are not replyable.
message_idsYesMessage ids from mailbox_claim / mailbox_check.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observed

TDQS

A4.4/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Beyond the bare annotations, it discloses the terminal nature (never replayed), idempotency behavior via ack_id (same key replays original count, no second reply), strict unknown-field rejection with structured errors, and nuanced reply routing. None of this is visible in the annotations, and nothing contradicts them.

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?

Three dense sentences, each carrying a distinct load: terminal behavior, reply_text routing, ack_id idempotency, then error handling. The most critical fact (terminal) is front-loaded; no filler.

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 three-parameter tool with no output schema and no read-only/destructive annotations, the description covers the key behavioral surface well: terminality, reply delivery rules, idempotency, and strict error handling. It stops short of describing the method's return value or what happens on invalid/expired message ids, so a small completeness gap remains.

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 applies; the schema already documents ack_id and reply_text almost verbatim. The description adds the global strict-field behavior and confirms terminal ack semantics, but it does not materially extend parameter meaning beyond the schema.

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 specific verb+resource: 'Mark leased inbox messages done,' and adds the decisive terminal qualifier that acked messages are never replayed. This clearly separates mailbox_ack from its siblings (mailbox_claim, mailbox_check, mailbox_send) even without naming them.

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?

It establishes the applicable context: the messages are leased inbox messages, and the schema ties message_ids to mailbox_claim/mailbox_check. It gives explicit conditions for reply delivery ('all came from one peer sender') and excludes system notices, but it never explicitly says 'use after mailbox_claim' or contrasts with mailbox_send, so an exclusion clause is missing.

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

Try in Browser

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources