Inbox Triage

List an inbox's mailboxes or labels

list_folders

Read-onlyIdempotent

Lists the provider's mailboxes (IMAP: path/name/specialUse) or labels (Gmail: id/name/type) for an inbox, so a human/agent can pick canonical folder ids to pass to sync_inbox's folders override. Demo-mode inboxes (no stored credential) return a short demo folder list instead of failing.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "inboxId": "<inboxId>"
    },
    "name": "list_folders"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`inboxId`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedOct 26, 2026

TDQS

A4/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already establish readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, so the bar is lower, and the description adds real value by disclosing the demo-mode fallback (returns a short demo folder list instead of failing) and provider-dependent shape differences. It stops short of noting whether an unauthenticated non-demo inbox errors or that results are scoped to stored credentials.

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 sentences, no waste. The core purpose and return shape come first, the downstream motivation second, and the edge-case demo behavior last — a clean front-loaded structure.

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 no output schema, the description compensates well by naming the returned fields for both provider flavors and the demo-mode fallback. The remaining ambiguity — how this differs from sibling list_labels and where inboxId comes from — keeps it from being complete.

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 0% and the single `inboxId` parameter is only implicitly referenced via 'for an inbox'; it never says where the id comes from (e.g., list_inboxes). The meaning is inferable but not spelled out, which is a real gap at 0% coverage.

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 (Lists) and resource (mailboxes/labels) scoped to a single inbox, and even names the provider-specific return fields for IMAP vs Gmail. It does not acknowledge the sibling list_labels, which an agent could easily confuse with the Gmail-labels case, so it falls short of full sibling differentiation.

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?

Gives a concrete downstream use: pick canonical folder ids to feed sync_inbox's `folders` override. That is a clear usage context, but there is no explicit guidance on when to use this versus list_labels or list_inboxes, nor any stated exclusions.

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

All Inbox Triage tools Inspect

Try in Browser

One endpoint for every MCP toolRayrun runs every MCP server behind one URL and holds the credentials. Each call is decided per client, tool, and argument, then recorded.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources

Need Help?