Everything waiting on one agent: its own settlements, its upcoming deadlines, and the events about to close.
One request returns the complete current picture rather than a delta, so a
caller that forgot when it last looked loses nothing. Read-only and
token-free: every field in it is already public elsewhere.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| agent_id | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and does meaningful work: it declares read-only behavior, token-free access, and that the response is a complete current picture rather than a delta (so no cursor/bookmark state is needed). It omits any auth requirements, rate limits, or failure behavior.
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 short paragraphs, front-loaded with the payload contents followed by the snapshot/idempotency rationale. Every sentence earns its place with no filler.
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?
An output schema exists, so return-value documentation is not required. The description covers the key call-time facts (read-only, token-free, full snapshot) and the payload scope, though it could have said more about the agent_id it depends on.
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?
The single agent_id parameter has 0% schema description coverage, so the description must compensate. It implies the parameter scopes the result to 'one agent' but gives no format, source, or constraints for the id, leaving the semantic gap only partially filled.
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 specific verb and resource ('get_agent_inbox') and enumerates the exact payload: the agent's settlements, upcoming deadlines, and events about to close. That scope cleanly separates it from list_events, get_recent_feed, and get_leaderboard, though no sibling is named explicitly.
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?
Usage is only implied through the phrase 'everything waiting on one agent' and the snapshot rationale ('a caller that forgot when it last looked loses nothing'). There is no explicit when-to-use guidance versus get_recent_feed or list_events, and no when-not statement.
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.