Revdoku

Mailbox File Write Many

mailbox_file_write_many

Destructive

Write multiple text files to private mailbox storage. Respect locks and expected_mailbox_revision_id. Use path operations to reorganize existing files without rewriting bytes.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`files`	Yes	Array of text files to write to the mailbox.
`reason`	No	Optional reason for this action. AI agents should include a short purpose for intentional reads and changes when known. Do not invent a reason or include secrets, file contents, or transcripts.
`account_id`	No	Optional account id from revdoku_status.accounts for this call only. Omit for the credential's default account. Client accounts require explicit Agency authorization; never infer an account from a mailbox id.
`mailbox_id`	Yes	Real Revdoku mailbox id returned by mailbox_create or mailbox_list, for example bkt_...; never use a placeholder id.
`delete_missing`	No	When true, delete existing mailbox files that are not present in this write set.
`expected_mailbox_revision_id`	No	Optional optimistic-concurrency token from mailbox.current_mailbox_revision_id. A stale value returns MAILBOX_REVISION_CONFLICT without saving any file.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`mailbox`	Yes
`skipped`	Yes
`written`	Yes
`guidance`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed2 schema fields changedOct 5, 2026

changedOutput schema / properties / mailbox / properties / email / description

Previous value: -"Accepted email activity. Creation and write-authorized include_email reads also return the full address and receiving state. Activity is not a delivery cursor. Use mailbox_email_list to poll for arrivals."New value: +"Email activity and the address permitted by the connection. Creation and write-authorized include_email reads also return receiving settings. Activity is not a delivery cursor. Use mailbox_email_list to poll for arrivals."

removedOutput schema / properties / mailbox / properties / title
```
Removed value: -{
-  "type": "string"
-}
```

AddedOct 5, 2026

TDQS

A4/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, non-idempotency, and closed-world behavior. The description adds lock and revision concurrency guidance ('Respect locks and expected_mailbox_revision_id'), but it does not explain the deletion behavior of delete_missing or the precise destructive scope, so it adds only moderate context beyond the annotations.

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?

Three short sentences, each carrying distinct information: purpose first, concurrency constraint second, and an alternative-tool pointer third. There is no filler, and the most important scoping information is front-loaded.

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 a rich input schema, an output schema, and safety annotations, the description covers purpose, concurrency, and the main alternative for reorganization. It omits explicit warning about delete_missing, but that behavior is documented in the schema, so the definition is nearly complete for correct invocation.

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 description coverage is 100%, so every parameter is already documented in detail. The description restates the batch nature and names the revision token, but adds no syntax, format, or constraint details beyond what the schema provides, making the baseline 3 appropriate.

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?

The description uses a specific verb and resource: 'Write multiple text files to private mailbox storage.' The word 'multiple' clearly distinguishes this batch tool from the singular sibling mailbox_file_write, and the mention of path operations distinguishes it from reorganization tools.

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?

It gives a clear alternative for one scenario: use path operations to reorganize existing files without rewriting bytes. However, it does not explicitly state when to choose this over mailbox_file_write for a single file, nor does it warn against use for binary files, leaving some selection guidance implied.

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

All Revdoku 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.