list_inbox_placement_testsLists every inbox placement test defined in the workspace, newest first. A test is the definition: the email content, which mailboxes send it and, for a recurring test, how often it runs. Each execution of a test is a run (list_inbox_placement_runs). Inbox placement is a paid add-on: a workspace without it gets an error, not an empty list.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds meaningful non-schema behavior: newest-first ordering and the paid-add-on error case (not an empty list), which prevents the agent from misreading an error as 'no tests'.
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?
Three tight sentences, front-loaded with purpose, then the definition, then the routing and error caveat. Every sentence carries distinct information with no repetition of the name or title.
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?
Complete for a no-param list tool: purpose, ordering, the definition/run boundary, the sibling for runs, and the add-on failure mode are all present. No output schema exists, but the description implies the shape via 'newest first' and the test definition.
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?
Zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description correctly documents there are no filtering or pagination inputs, matching the empty schema.
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 ('Lists') and resource ('inbox placement tests'), and explicitly defines what a test is (content, mailboxes, recurrence), distinguishing the definition from its executions. This clearly separates it from siblings like list_inbox_placement_runs and get_inbox_placement_run.
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?
Explicitly routes the agent to list_inbox_placement_runs for executions and warns that a no-add-on workspace gets an error, not an empty list. It doesn't state when to prefer this over per-test getters, but the definition/run distinction covers the main selection decision.
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.