replayWebhookDeliveryRe-send a stored webhook payload from a previous delivery attempt to its original endpoint. Rate limited per org (burst + sustained windows, shared budget with email webhook replays).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | Delivery ID (numeric string from listWebhookDeliveries). |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| data | Yes | ||
| tool | Yes | ||
| status | Yes | ||
| statusText | No |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations are minimal (no readOnlyHint, etc.), so the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It adds the rate-limiting constraint, which is critical for an agent. However, it does not clarify potential side effects (e.g., idempotency is false but no mention of duplicates). Still, the added value is high.
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 purpose, followed by critical constraint. No unnecessary words. Every sentence adds value.
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 tool with one parameter and an output schema, the description covers the purpose and a key behavioral constraint (rate limits). It does not mention error cases or prerequisites like payload availability, but these are implied. Overall adequate.
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?
The schema has 100% coverage for the single parameter 'id', with a clear description in the schema. The tool description does not add any additional parameter-level information beyond what the schema provides, so baseline 3 is appropriate.
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 this tool re-sends a stored webhook payload to its original endpoint, distinguishing it from sibling tools like listWebhookDeliveries or testEndpoint. It uses specific language ('re-send', 'stored webhook payload', 'original endpoint').
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 usage context by mentioning rate limits per org with burst and sustained windows and shared budget. It implies when to consider using this tool (with rate awareness), but does not explicitly list when not to use or alternatives.
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: domain management (addDomain, verifyDomain), sending (sendEmail, replyToEmail), receiving (getEmail, listEmails), webhooks (createEndpoint, listWebhookDeliveries), status (getAccount, getInboxStatus), etc. There is no overlap in purpose, and descriptions clearly differentiate them.
All tools follow a consistent verb_noun pattern in snake_case, such as listDomains, createFilter, downloadEmailAttachments, and getSentEmail. The verbs (get, list, create, delete, send, reply, etc.) are used predictably, with no mixing of conventions.
29 tools is slightly on the high side but still reasonable for an email server covering domains, sending, receiving, webhooks, filters, and status. Each tool serves a specific purpose and earns its place, though some consolidation might be possible.
The tool set covers core email workflows: domain setup (add, verify, list), sending/receiving, threading, webhook lifecycle, and filtering. Minor gaps exist, such as missing deleteDomain or updateEndpoint, but the surface is largely complete for the intended domain.