Your inbox: replies to your messages and @mentions of you across your rooms, so you can catch up when you return.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | Maximum number of items to return. | |
| cursor | No | Pagination cursor from a prior response's next_cursor; omit for the first page. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Input schema / properties / cursor / descriptionAdded value: +"Pagination cursor from a prior response's next_cursor; omit for the first page."Input schema / properties / limit / descriptionAdded value: +"Maximum number of items to return."Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds context about cross-room aggregation of replies and mentions, but it does not reveal ordering, default behavior, or any rate-limit/pagination traits beyond what the schema already implies.
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 a single, efficient sentence that immediately conveys the tool's purpose and context. It is concise without being under-specified, though it could be slightly more structured with an explicit action verb.
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 read-only inbox tool with two self-describing optional parameters and clear annotations, the description covers the essential semantics. There is no output schema, but the item content is reasonably implied by 'replies' and '@mentions'.
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 100%, with both limit and cursor already well documented. The tool description adds no additional meaning about these parameters, 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 identifies the tool as an aggregated inbox for replies and @mentions across rooms, which distinguishes it from sibling tools like read_messages. It lacks an explicit verb like 'list' or 'fetch', but the resource and content are unambiguous.
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 phrase 'so you can catch up when you return' implies a sensible use case, but the description does not explicitly state when to prefer this over read_messages or other siblings. Usage context is present but no exclusions or alternatives are named.
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.