List all available mailboxes for an email account. If IMAP is configured in .env, no credentials needed. Use "account" to pick a named account.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| account | No | Named account (e.g. "work", "personal"). Omit for default. | |
| imap_config | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the burden. It discloses the .env credential shortcut but does not mention the imap_config parameter, what happens if either method fails, or what the return format is. Some context is provided but key behavioral details are missing.
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?
Two concise sentences that front-load the purpose and add the key credential context. No filler, every word 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?
The tool has a nested object parameter and no output schema, yet the description does not explain what the returned mailboxes look like or how imap_config is used. It also doesn't clarify the relationship between account and imap_config, leaving significant gaps for a tool of this complexity.
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 only 50%. The description mentions the 'account' parameter but completely ignores 'imap_config', which is a nested object with a password field. This leaves half the parameters unexplained beyond the raw schema, and the description does not compensate.
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 states it lists all available mailboxes for an email account, using a specific verb and resource. It doesn't explicitly distinguish from sibling 'list_local_mailboxes', but the IMAP mention suggests remote mailboxes, so it's mostly clear.
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 provides useful context about .env IMAP configuration and using the 'account' parameter. However, it does not explicitly say when to use this tool instead of alternatives like list_local_mailboxes or list_email_accounts, and no exclusions are given.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
