Update inbound email policy to 'owner', 'list', or 'sent' to control which senders can reach your inbox. Optionally provide allowed senders to customize the allowlist.
Updates inbound email policy for the authenticated account.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| apiKey | No | ||
| policy | Yes | ||
| allowedSenders | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.3.2Input schema / properties / allowedSenders / items / patternPrevious value: -"^(?!\\.)(?!.*\\.\\.)([A-Za-z0-9_'+\\-\\.]*)[A-Za-z0-9_+-]@([A-Za-z0-9][A-Za-z0-9\\-]*\\.)+[A-Za-z]{2,}$"New value: +"^(?:[A-Za-z0-9_'+\\-]+\\.)*[A-Za-z0-9_'+\\-]*[A-Za-z0-9_+-]@(?:[A-Za-z0-9][A-Za-z0-9\\-]*\\.)+[A-Za-z]{2,}$"Input schema / properties / apiKey / formatAdded value: +"starts_with"v1.3.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It indicates a mutation ('Updates') but does not disclose side effects, permission requirements, whether the update is partial or full replacement, or what happens to existing allowedSenders when policy changes. The description adds minimal behavioral context beyond the verb itself.
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, concise sentence with no wasted words. It is front-loaded with the action and resource, though it could have used the available space to add parameter or usage context.
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 mutation tool with no annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema description coverage, the description is too thin. It does not explain the policy enum semantics, the role of allowedSenders, or the effect of the update, leaving an agent under-informed for correct invocation.
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 0%, so the description must compensate, but it does not explain any parameter semantics. The schema provides enums and formats, but the description adds no meaning about how policy values ('owner', 'list', 'sent') interact with allowedSenders or what each policy implies.
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 states a specific verb ('Updates') and resource ('inbound email policy') for the authenticated account. It is clear enough to distinguish from sibling tools like get_inbound_policy, though it doesn't explicitly name the sibling or elaborate on what the policy controls.
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 is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any context about prerequisites or typical scenarios. The description only states what it does, leaving the agent to infer usage from the name and schema.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.