commsharbor_email_workspace_snapshotRead the current email workspace, DNS progress and recent jobs. The ID must match X-Organization-Id. Membership is checked again for each snapshot and delivered event. Events contain only an opaque change ID. DNS checks run in the private backend, with a 24-hour deadline and a visible resume action after pause.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | Selected organization ID |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already establish the safe read-only, idempotent profile, so the description clears the lower bar. It adds real behavioral context beyond annotations: membership is re-validated per snapshot, events carry only an opaque change ID, and DNS checks run in the private backend on a 24-hour deadline with a visible resume action after pause. Return-format detail (pagination, snapshot size) is still absent.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Four sentences, front-loaded with the core read behavior before the scoping and DNS details. Nothing is redundant, though the DNS-deadline sentence is somewhat tangential to tool selection and could be condensed.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a single-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description covers identity scoping, membership re-checks, event shape, and backend DNS behavior. The main missing piece is any differentiation from the sibling workspace tool, which the agent needs to choose correctly.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Only one parameter, and schema coverage is 100% with the schema describing it as 'Selected organization ID', so the baseline is 3. The description adds a genuine constraint not in the schema: the ID must match the X-Organization-Id header, which changes how an agent must source the value.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
States a specific verb and resource set: read the current email workspace plus DNS progress and recent jobs. An agent knows exactly what surface is returned. However, it never distinguishes this from the sibling commsharbor_email_workspace, leaving the agent to guess which one to pick.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Usage is implied by the content listing (workspace state, DNS progress, recent jobs) and by the requirement that the ID match X-Organization-Id. There is no explicit when-to-use/when-not or routing to the near-identical commsharbor_email_workspace sibling, which is the biggest selection risk here.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.