List organization inbox messages from ClassQuill tutoring-business data. Filter by unread, read, or archived status and paginate through results.
List Org Inbox
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | Records per page (default 20, max 100) | |
| offset | No | Pagination offset | |
| status | No | Filter by status: unread | read | archived |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| data | Yes | ||
| meta | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.4Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, but the description itself discloses no behavior—no mention of pagination, ordering, default statuses, or that results may be open-world. It adds zero context beyond the annotations, so it does not help an agent anticipate 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?
At four words, it is not concise but under-specified. There is no substantive information beyond the name, so the brevity is a defect rather than a virtue.
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?
With an output schema and rich annotations, much is covered elsewhere, but the description still fails to explain what an 'Org Inbox' contains or how this listing differs from the many other list_* tools. For a tool with optional filters like status, some context about use cases is expected.
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 input schema provides 100% coverage with descriptions for limit, offset, and status, so the baseline is 3. The description adds nothing about parameters, but the schema fully compensates.
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?
Description is 'List Org Inbox', which restates the tool name with spacing. It conveys a listing operation on an org inbox but offers no details that distinguish it from the many sibling list_* tools. This is a tautology rather than an informative definition.
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 about when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any prerequisites or context. The description contains no if/then or comparison to siblings. Agents are left to infer that 'Org Inbox' is the resource.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.