Skip to main content
Glama

inboxmcp

by io.github.zhlei07
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

Record an email decision and stop its local delivery

report_email_decision
DestructiveIdempotent

Record a legacy delivery decision and stop remaining Grok delivery and retries for one event.

    Requires email:read and decisions:write. Use only for explicitly requested legacy delivery
    handling; use complete_email_batch for this AI connection's monitoring progress instead.
    Returns recorded/duplicate flags. Repeating the identical decision and reason is safe;
    changing an existing decision fails. Does not modify source mail or send a notification.
    Requests already sent may still complete. This can affect Grok delivery, so do not use it
    merely to avoid processing an email in another AI connection.

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
reasonNoOptional explanation, at most 1000 characters. Exact duplicate decisions must reuse the same reason.
decisionYesAgent's recorded classification: notify, digest or silent. This value does not trigger a notification.
event_idYesAuthorized InboxMCP event ID whose remaining legacy delivery should be stopped.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed3 schema fields changed
    • addedInput schema / properties / decision / description
      Added value: +"Agent's recorded classification: notify, digest or silent. This value does not trigger a notification."
    • addedInput schema / properties / event_id / description
      Added value: +"Authorized InboxMCP event ID whose remaining legacy delivery should be stopped."
    • addedInput schema / properties / reason / description
      Added value: +"Optional explanation, at most 1000 characters. Exact duplicate decisions must reuse the same reason."
  2. First observed

TDQS

A4.6/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Goes well beyond the annotations: it states required scopes (email:read, decisions:write), the idempotency semantics in detail (identical decision+reason is safe; changing an existing decision fails), the non-effects (does not modify source mail or send a notification), and the important caveat that 'requests already sent may still complete'. Annotations flag destructive/idempotent, but the description explains what is actually destroyed and under what conditions.

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?

The primary action is front-loaded in the first sentence and every subsequent sentence carries distinct information (auth, alternative, idempotency, side effects). It is dense but not padded; only the heavy line-wrapping/indentation makes it slightly harder to scan than it needs to be.

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 compensates by stating the return shape ('Returns recorded/duplicate flags'), and it covers permissions, idempotency, failure modes, and blast radius for a destructive mutation. Nothing an agent needs to invoke it safely is missing.

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

Parameters3/5

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

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the meaning of event_id, decision, and reason is already fully documented in the schema, including the reason-reuse rule and the enum values. The description adds no parameter-level syntax or constraints beyond that, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Record a legacy delivery decision and stop remaining Grok delivery and retries for one event'), with the scope limited to one event. It explicitly names a sibling (complete_email_batch) as the alternative for a different concern, so an agent can distinguish it from the other email tools without opening schemas.

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

Usage Guidelines5/5

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

Gives an explicit precondition ('use only for explicitly requested legacy delivery handling'), names the alternative tool and the condition that selects it ('use complete_email_batch for this AI connection's monitoring progress instead'), and adds a clear anti-pattern ('do not use it merely to avoid processing an email in another AI connection'). When-not guidance is unusually concrete.

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