List messages in an inbox, newest first. Pass after= to poll for only new mail.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| after | No | ISO date-time; only messages created after this instant. | |
| limit | No | ||
| token | No | Mailbox bearer token (mi_live_...) returned when the inbox was purchased. Optional when the MCP request itself carries Authorization: Bearer. | |
| before | No | ISO date-time cursor for older mail. | |
| inbox_id | Yes | Inbox UUID. |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses ordering and polling behavior but omits pagination details (e.g., how limit and before interact, whether token is for pagination or auth), error behavior, and authentication requirements beyond the token parameter. The description is adequate for basic use but leaves gaps.
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 two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, then a specific usage hint. No wasted words; every sentence earns its place. The structure supports quick comprehension.
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?
Given the tool has 5 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description covers only the basic purpose and one usage pattern. It does not explain pagination (limit, before, token behavior) or return format, leaving the agent under-informed for non-polling scenarios. Adequate but not comprehensive.
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 80%, so most parameters are already described. The description adds value beyond the schema by explaining how to use 'after' for polling ('Pass after=<newest createdAt seen>'). This practical guidance enhances the agent's understanding without repeating schema content.
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 'List messages in an inbox, newest first,' which uses a specific verb ('List') and resource ('messages') with ordering. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_message (single message) and create_inbox (different operation).
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 provides a concrete usage pattern for polling ('Pass after=<newest createdAt seen> to poll for only new mail'), giving clear context for one common scenario. However, it does not explicitly exclude other tools or state when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_message, leaving some inference needed.
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.
