Skip to main content
Glama

Revdoku

by com.revdoku
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

Mailbox Update

mailbox_update

Update a storage mailbox description or metadata.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
reasonNoOptional 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.
metadataNoOptional JSON metadata object stored with the mailbox.
account_idNoOptional 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_idYesValue for mailbox id.
descriptionNoOptional human-readable description for the mailbox.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
mailboxYes
guidanceNo

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed3 schema fields changed
    • removedInput schema / properties / title
      Removed value: -{
-  "description": "Human-readable title for the mailbox.",
-  "type": "string"
-}
    • 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"
-}
  2. Added

TDQS

C2.9/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the mutation nature is covered. The description adds nothing beyond that: it does not say whether metadata is replaced or merged, whether the operation can be undone, or any authorization requirement (only the schema's account_id field hints at that).

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?

One short sentence with zero padding and the resource is front-loaded. It could be slightly more useful without being longer, but it wastes no words.

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

Completeness3/5

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

With a full output schema and complete parameter descriptions, most of the structured burden is carried elsewhere. Still, for a non-idempotent mutation tool the description omits update semantics (merge vs overwrite) and any usage framing, leaving real gaps for an agent deciding how to call it.

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 the schema already documents mailbox_id, description, metadata, reason, and account_id in detail. The description names 'description' and 'metadata' but adds no format or merge-semantics detail beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 clear verb (Update) and resource (mailbox) plus the specific mutable fields (description or metadata). It is distinguishable from mailbox_get/mailbox_list, but never names or contrasts with related siblings such as mailbox_archive or mailbox_create.

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

Usage Guidelines2/5

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

There is no when-to-use guidance, no preconditions, and no mention of alternatives among the many sibling tools. The agent must infer entirely from the name that this is the way to change mailbox-level descriptive fields.

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

All Revdoku toolsInspect
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