Find emails in a FudanMailBox folder by text, sender, subject, recipient, date range, or unread/starred status, with an optional result limit.
Search one folder. since/before use ISO dates such as 2026-10-01.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| text | No | ||
| limit | No | ||
| since | No | ||
| before | No | ||
| folder | No | INBOX | |
| sender | No | ||
| subject | No | ||
| recipient | No | ||
| unread_only | No | ||
| starred_only | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, yet it says nothing about pagination, result ordering, authentication, or whether the search is exhaustive. Only the date-format note is given, and that is parameter syntax rather than 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 sentences with the scope constraint front-loaded and no wasted words. However, the sparseness reflects under-specification rather than disciplined conciseness, so it earns only a middling score.
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 values need not be explained. But for a 10-parameter, zero-coverage, annotation-free search tool, the description leaves nearly all filter semantics and all behavioral traits unstated, which is not enough 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% across 10 parameters, so the description must compensate, but it addresses only since/before (ISO format). text, sender, subject, recipient, limit, folder, unread_only, and starred_only are left entirely undocumented in both structured data and prose.
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 (Search) and resource, and adds a scope constraint ('one folder') that an agent can act on. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from the sibling list_messages, but the verb+scope makes the intent legible enough to select it.
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?
There is no when-to-use guidance, no statement of when-not-to-use, and no mention of the obvious alternative list_messages. The 'one folder' phrase implies scoping but never explains the condition under which a search is preferable to a plain listing.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.