inbox_listList messages delivered to your Aura email address, newest first.
When to use: Call after signing up somewhere, to see what arrived. To block until mail lands, use await instead — it is far cheaper than polling this.
Price: US$0.001000 per call.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| from | No | ||
| limit | No | ||
| unread_only | No |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The readOnly and openWorld annotations already signal safety and external changes. The description adds value by stating newest-first ordering and the per-call price, plus the hint that polling is more expensive than using await. There is no contradiction with 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.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is tight and front-loaded: one sentence for the operation, one for when-to-use and alternatives, and one line for price. Every sentence earns its place.
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 low-complexity read-only list with no output schema, it covers the operation, use case, alternative, and cost. The only real gap is the undocumented return shape and the unaddressed 'from' filter, but the overall description is still sufficient for basic invocation.
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 description coverage is 0%, and the description compensates poorly: it never explains 'from', 'limit', or 'unread_only' behavior. While 'limit' and 'unread_only' are fairly self-explanatory from their names/defaults, 'from' is ambiguous and no clarification is provided.
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 opens with a concrete action and scope: 'List messages delivered to your Aura email address, newest first.' The verb 'List' and the target 'messages' make the operation unmistakable and differentiate it from the sibling 'inbox_read'.
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?
It gives a specific trigger ('Call after signing up somewhere, to see what arrived') and explicitly steers blocking use cases to a named sibling: 'use await instead — it is far cheaper than polling this.' This is clear when-to-use and alternative guidance.
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 addresses a distinct resource or action: memory operations are clearly separated from inbox operations, await/park/resume are differentiated by whether the process stays alive or hands off state, and administrative calls like capabilities, whoami, and credit_deposit have non-overlapping purposes. No two tools appear interchangeable.
Most resource operations follow an object_verb pattern (memory_get, hook_create, inbox_list), but core primitives like await, park, resume, and signal are bare verbs, while capabilities and whoami are bare nouns. The style is consistently lowercase snake_case and readable, but the naming convention is mixed rather than uniform.
At 16 tools the set is just past the typical well-scoped range, but each tool maps to a distinct platform capability: identity, inbox, memory, hooks/signals, parking, and billing. It feels slightly heavy rather than bloated.
The core agent workflow is covered end to end: identity creation, credit deposit, hook creation, awaiting triggers, inbox reading, durable memory, and the park/resume round-trip. Minor gaps remain—there is no hook list/delete and no way to cancel a parked state—but they can be worked around rather than blocking.