Fetch items your phone sent to the agent—trigger data, share sheet inputs, payments—so you can process them. Optionally filter by a timestamp; acknowledge after handling.
Fetch items the phone sent to the agent (trigger data, share sheet, payments…). Call askew_inbox_ack after handling them.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| since | No | ISO 시각 — 이 이후 항목만 |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.2Does 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. It usefully indicates that items are sent by the phone and that acknowledgement is expected afterward, implying items are not auto-acked. However, it does not disclose ordering, pagination, whether the list is destructive, or how unacknowledged items behave over time.
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 two sentences with no waste. The main action is front-loaded, concrete examples are placed parenthetically, and the follow-up action (ack) is included without bloating the text.
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 one-parameter, no-output-schema tool, the description provides enough context to know what the tool does and what to do next. It does not enumerate the output item shape, but the examples give a sufficient high-level understanding for an agent to invoke it effectively.
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 100%: the only parameter, 'since', is documented as an ISO time filter for items after that time. The description adds no parameter-level detail, but none is needed because the schema already explains the parameter sufficiently.
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 ('Fetch') and resource ('items the phone sent to the agent'), with concrete examples such as trigger data, share sheet, and payments. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling askew_inbox_ack and most other sibling tools. The only minor gap is not explicitly contrasting with askew_inbox_wait, but the name and description make the list-versus-wait distinction clear.
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 explicitly instructs to call askew_inbox_ack after handling items, establishing a clear workflow sequence. It does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over askew_inbox_wait or other siblings, but the fetch semantics are implied strongly enough for an agent to select it appropriately.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.