Retrieve detailed information about a single inbox by its ID, including configuration and status, to support inbox management.
Read one inbox's details by ID.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| inbox_id | Yes | Superchat inbox ID, for example one returned by list_inboxes. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is well covered. The description adds no contradictory behavior and correctly frames the operation as a read, but it does not add additional behavioral context such as auth requirements, error cases, or return shape.
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?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence with no filler. Every word contributes to identifying the action, the resource, and the input requirement.
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 simple single-parameter read operation, the description is sufficient even without an output schema. It clearly identifies the resource and input, and the sibling list operation covers the listing alternative. A bit more detail about what 'details' include would push it higher.
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 schema already covers the single parameter 100%, including a pattern and an example source ('returned by list_inboxes'). The description's 'by ID' adds no semantic detail beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline 3 is appropriate.
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 uses a specific verb ('Read') and resource ('one inbox's details') with a clear identifier requirement ('by ID'). It is immediately distinguishable from the sibling list operation 'list_inboxes' and from getters of other resource types.
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?
The description implies the use case clearly: when you need details for a specific inbox and already have its ID. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the context is strong enough given the sibling getters and listers.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.