list_site_inboxRead the email threads (received, sent, web captures) for the agent's sites. Optionally scoped to one site by slug.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| slug | No | limit to one site by slug; omit for all sites |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Input schema / properties / slug / descriptionAdded value: +"limit to one site by slug; omit for all sites"Output schema / (root)Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+ "$schema": "http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#",
+ "additionalProperties": false,
+ "properties": {
+ "result": {}
+ },
+ "required": [
+ "result"
+ ],
+ "type": "object"
+}Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, confirming it is a read operation. The description adds 'Read the email threads' which aligns but offers no further behavioral details (e.g., error states, pagination, or rate limits).
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 sentences, front-loaded with the core action and scope. Every word adds value; no redundancy or unnecessary 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?
For a read tool with one optional parameter and an output schema, the description covers the essential scope (agent's sites, thread types). It could benefit from mentioning ordering or result limits, but is otherwise sufficient.
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 coverage is 100%, and the parameter 'slug' is already documented. The description mentions 'optionally scoped to one site by slug,' which reinforces but does not significantly expand beyond the schema.
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 reads email threads for the agent's sites and can be scoped by slug. The title specifies 'site's email inbox threads,' effectively distinguishing it from the sibling 'list_inbox' tool, though it does not explicitly contrast them.
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?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'list_inbox'. It does not specify prerequisites or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage without explicit direction.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.