List draft emails in Naver Mail, optionally filtered by a search query. Use pagination and choose metadata-only or full view to review subjects and bodies.
Lists drafts, optionally filtered by a query (same syntax as search_threads).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| view | No | DRAFT_VIEW_FULL adds subject and plaintextBody. | |
| query | No | ||
| pageSize | No | Default 20, max 50. | |
| pageToken | No |
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 and openWorldHint=false, so safety and closed-world behavior are covered. The description adds only the query-syntax equivalence; it says nothing about pagination behavior or what fields come back by default, leaving gaps that annotations don't fill.
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?
A single front-loaded sentence with no filler; the filter behavior and the syntax pointer each carry information an agent needs. Nothing is redundant or buried.
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-only list tool with four optional params and no output schema, the description is adequate but thin: it omits pagination expectations, the default view, and any statement of what a draft record contains. Those are the details an agent would still have to discover from the schema alone.
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 50%: view and pageSize are documented inline, while query and pageToken are not. The description adds real value by tying 'query' to search_threads syntax, but it does nothing for pageToken and doesn't clarify view defaulting, so it only partly compensates for the coverage gap.
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 ('Lists drafts') plus the optional filter behavior, which separates it cleanly from get_draft (single draft) and search_threads (threads, not drafts). It stops short of noting the draft-specific scope details (which mailbox/account scope) that would pin it down fully.
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 word 'optionally' implies you can call it without a query, and the reference to search_threads hints at the query mechanism, but there is no explicit when-to-use vs. siblings like search_threads or get_draft. Usage is inferable rather than stated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.