Inbox Triage

Propose reporting a message as spam

propose_mark_spam

Returns a pending spam report for the person to approve in the app prompt or on the approval page. Call confirm_mark_spam next. Nothing happens until they approve. Never moves anything itself. Reporting a message as spam teaches the provider's own filter, so later mail from that sender is affected too — that part is not undone by putting the message back, which is why this is proposed rather than done in one call. Prefer trash_messages when the human just wants the message gone. Check get_triage_profile first: VIP people/domains are never-auto, so ask the human before acting on their mail. Approval is the app prompt or the approval page (approvalUrl); the result says which (approvalPath). Chat approval does not count.

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>",
      "messageId": "<messageId>"
    },
    "name": "propose_mark_spam"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`inboxId`	Yes
`confirmed`	No	Only needed when the sender is on the VIP list: pass true after the human agrees in chat.
`messageId`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedOct 26, 2026

TDQS

A4.6/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Goes well beyond the annotations by explaining that nothing happens until human approval, that approval must be the app prompt or approval page (chat approval does not count), and that spam reporting irreversibly trains the provider's filter — the very reason for the propose/confirm split. It also notes the result carries approvalPath so the agent can tell which channel is in play.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Purpose and the confirm-next step are front-loaded, and each later sentence carries real policy (irreversibility, VIP gating, approval channels). Slightly dense and with mild redundancy between 'Nothing happens until they approve' and 'Never moves anything itself'.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness5/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a 3-param tool with no output schema, the description covers the prerequisites (triage profile, VIP check), the required follow-up call, the approval-channel constraint, and even the shape of the result (approvalUrl/approvalPath). Nothing an agent needs to invoke and complete the workflow is missing.

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 only 33%, so the description needs to compensate; it does partially by tying VIP status and human chat agreement to the workflow, which is exactly what the `confirmed` flag governs. However, it never explains `inboxId` vs `messageId` or format expectations, so the two undocumented required params remain unexplained.

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?

States a specific verb (propose) and resource (mark spam) and immediately clarifies the two-phase flow by naming the follow-up sibling confirm_mark_spam. An agent can distinguish this from confirm_mark_spam, train_spam_filter, and trash_messages without opening any schema.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines5/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Explicit routing: 'Prefer trash_messages when the human just wants the message gone', 'Call confirm_mark_spam next', and 'Check get_triage_profile first' for VIP mail, with the requirement to ask the human before acting on VIP senders. Both the alternative and the prerequisite are stated outright.

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?