Inbox Triage

Unsnooze messages

unsnooze_messages

Idempotent

Clears a snooze so the person's messages show in show_inbox again. Messages the person picked: pass each row's inboxId and messageId from show_inbox (the id block at the end of its text, or structuredContent.rows), usually by row number ("archive 2 and 5"). Or pass sender { inboxId, email } to act on that sender's mail still in the inbox, like "archive everything from 2" after review_unsubscribes (up to 50 newest per call). Mail from a VIP is skipped when you act on several messages. Act on a VIP's message alone, and only after the person agrees: in apps that can prompt the person, they are asked directly; otherwise ask in chat and pass vipConfirmed:true. Reporting spam is not done here: it goes through propose_mark_spam then confirm_mark_spam, one message at a time. Work on your own only on a clear instruction or a saved agentRules rule; otherwise suggest and wait. The result has an undoId for undo_view_action, which works once, for 7 days; report counts and the undoId.

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "unsnooze_messages"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`items`	No
`sender`	No	Instead of items: every message from this sender still in the inbox
`vipConfirmed`	No	true only after the person agreed in chat to act on this one VIP message

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedOct 26, 2026

TDQS

A4.4/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already cover idempotence, open-world behavior, and non-destructiveness; the description adds important behavior beyond that: VIP mail is skipped when acting on several messages, VIP action requires consent or vipConfirmed, sender mode affects up to 50 newest messages, and the undoId works once for 7 days. These are concrete operational constraints an agent could not infer from annotations alone.

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?

Front-loads purpose, then moves through parameter sourcing, VIP safeguards, spam routing, autonomy, and undo behavior in a logical order. It is somewhat long and includes the confusing 'archive' examples plus a spam-routing aside that could be tighter, but most sentences carry useful operational information.

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?

Given three parameters, nested objects, no output schema, and substantial annotations, the description is nearly complete: it covers call construction, VIP handling, autonomy, result counts, and undo behavior. It omits an explicit statement that the items array also caps at 50 and has inconsistent action wording.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Explains where inboxId and messageId come from (show_inbox rows or row numbers), what the sender object means (all sender mail still in the inbox, up to 50 newest), and when vipConfirmed is required. Schema coverage is 67% and the schema already describes sender and vipConfirmed, but the description adds real sourcing and workflow semantics; the misleading 'archive' wording keeps it from a 5.

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 and resource ("Clears a snooze so the person's messages show in show_inbox again"), which clearly distinguishes it from snooze_messages. However, the repeated "archive" examples in the parameter guidance conflict with the unsnooze action and slightly blur what the tool actually does.

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?

Explicitly routes usage: use row ids from show_inbox or sender after review_unsubscribes, route spam through propose_mark_spam then confirm_mark_spam, and act autonomously only on clear instruction or saved agentRules rule. It also covers VIP confirmation and when to ask the person instead of proceeding.

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?