reply_to_inbox_threadSend a reply in a thread belonging to your team. Sends an email.
Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.
{
"id": 1,
"jsonrpc": "2.0",
"method": "tools/call",
"params": {
"arguments": {
"body": "<body>"
},
"name": "reply_to_inbox_thread"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| body | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, openWorldHint=true, and readOnlyHint=false, and 'Sends an email' is consistent with that. The description adds the useful scoping detail that the thread must belong to your team, but says nothing beyond annotations about irreversibility, attachment handling, or the draft-diff recording side effect present in the schema.
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?
Only two short sentences, which is appropriately brief, but the second ('Sends an email') merely restates the first and earns nothing. The budget is small yet the space is spent redundantly rather than on the missing parameter or safety detail.
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?
The tool takes a deeply nested request object with attachments and a draft-context sub-object, has no output schema, and has 0% schema description coverage. A two-sentence description that omits all of that leaves an agent unable to construct a correct call without reading the raw schema.
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%, so the description is the only place meaning can be added, and it adds none. It never mentions thread_id, from_email, to_address vs cc/bcc, attachments, timezone_name, or the draft context object whose semantics (draft-vs-sent diff, draft_instance_id reconciliation) are non-obvious.
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?
States a concrete verb and resource: send a reply into an existing inbox thread, scoped to the team. That is enough to distinguish it from sibling write tools such as send_pitch or edit_pitch_draft, though it never names those siblings or contrasts with read_inbox_thread.
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?
There is no guidance on when to use this versus edit_pitch_draft, send_pitch, or reply-via-draft flows, and no prerequisites (must the thread already exist? must from_email be a connected team sender?). Usage has to be inferred entirely from the name.
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.