Skip to main content
Glama

inboxmcp

by io.github.zhlei07
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

Check this AI connection's email monitoring

get_email_monitor_state
Read-onlyIdempotent

Check readiness before starting or troubleshooting this AI connection's email monitor.

    Requires email:read. Returns stored progress, mailbox collection health, pending/deferred
    counts, needs_owner_review_count, active lease and retention gaps, or not_configured with
    reconnection guidance. expired_deferred lists deferred events that retention removed before
    completion; it is informational and never blocks claims, unlike a retention gap.
    Progress is stored by InboxMCP, not by Notion or local files. This call changes no state,
    enables no collection and verifies no notifications. Reconnect for missing progress
    permission only if this client is eligible for consumer-state:write; a read-only client
    ceiling cannot be raised by reconnecting. Never reset an existing task's baseline.

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observed

TDQS

A4.6/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, but the description adds far more: the required email:read scope, the precise semantics of expired_deferred versus a retention gap, the fact that progress is stored by InboxMCP rather than Notion or local files, the eligibility nuance for reconnecting to consumer-state:write, and the warning never to reset an existing task baseline.

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?

Purpose and scope are front-loaded in the first sentence, and most subsequent sentences carry load-bearing constraints and return-shape detail. It is nonetheless dense and long for a zero-argument read tool, with several clauses that could be tightened, keeping it out of the top score.

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

Completeness5/5

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

With no output schema, the description carries the burden of explaining returns, and it does so thoroughly (progress, health, counts, leases, retention gaps, the not_configured case with reconnection guidance). An agent has everything needed to invoke it and interpret the result.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

This tool takes zero parameters, so per the rubric the baseline is 4. There is no argument surface for the description to disambiguate, and it correctly spends no words on parameter syntax.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description uses a specific verb-and-resource framing (check readiness/state of this AI connection's email monitor) and then enumerates exactly what it reports: stored progress, mailbox collection health, pending/deferred counts, needs_owner_review_count, leases and retention gaps. That granularity makes it trivially separable from siblings like get_sending_status or list_email_events, which cover different concerns.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

It states a clear context of use: 'Check readiness before starting or troubleshooting this AI connection's email monitor.' That tells the agent when the tool is relevant, but it names no alternative sibling and gives no explicit when-not condition, so it falls short of the 5-level routing guidance.

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

All inboxmcp 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