Read the inbox webhook state: URL, delivery counters, and whether it is disabled. The secret is only returned by set_webhook.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| token | No | Mailbox bearer token (mi_live_...) returned when the inbox was purchased. Optional when the MCP request itself carries Authorization: Bearer. | |
| inbox_id | Yes | Inbox UUID. |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It correctly identifies the operation as read-only and discloses what is returned and what is not (the secret). This is sufficient for a simple read tool, though it omits any mention of permissions or side effects.
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?
The description is very concise with two sentences. The first sentence front-loads the purpose and output, and the second adds a critical distinction. No unnecessary words or repetition.
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 simple read tool with two parameters and no output schema, the description is complete. It covers what the tool returns and what it does not. It could be improved by clarifying how it differs from get_inbox, but that is not essential.
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?
Schema coverage is 100% with both parameters already described in the input schema. The description does not add any additional meaning or context about the parameters beyond what the schema provides.
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?
The description clearly states the tool reads inbox webhook state and lists the returned fields (URL, delivery counters, disabled status). It also distinguishes itself from set_webhook by noting the secret is only returned by that tool.
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?
The description implies when to use this tool (to read webhook state) and provides an alternative hint: the secret is only returned by set_webhook. However, it does not explicitly exclude usage in other scenarios or compare with get_inbox, which might also contain webhook info.
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.
Each tool targets a distinct resource or action: create vs. delete vs. get for inboxes and webhooks, list vs. get for messages, plus specific actions like extracting verification codes, replying, and retrieving service info. There is no functional overlap.
All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern in snake_case (e.g., create_inbox, get_verification_code, set_webhook). The naming is predictable and uniform across the entire surface.
With 11 tools covering inbox lifecycle (create, read, delete), message retrieval and actions (list, get, reply, verification code), webhook management (set, get, delete), and service information, the count is well-scoped for a temporary email service.
The tool surface provides full CRUD for inboxes, message retrieval and reply, webhook management, and specialized operations like verification code extraction. No obvious gaps exist for the stated purpose of managing disposable inboxes.
