List emails matching optional filters like recipient, status, and date range, with limit and offset for pagination. Use this read-only endpoint to retrieve PostFrame email records via the EternalEngine public API.
List emails (rate limit: 100 requests per 1m) Read-only (GET /postframe/emails).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| to | No | ||
| limit | No | ||
| offset | No | ||
| status | No | ||
| to_date | No | ||
| from_date | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full disclosure burden. It usefully mentions the rate limit and that the operation is read-only via GET, but it does not discuss pagination behavior, defaults, authentication, or response format.
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 compact and front-loaded, with no filler. However, the brevity comes at the cost of omitting parameter semantics and 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 six-parameter list endpoint with no output schema and no annotations, the description is incomplete. It gives rate-limit and read-only context but leaves filter semantics, date formats, and pagination entirely unexplained.
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 schema has 0% description coverage across six parameters, and the description adds no parameter information. An agent cannot infer the meaning of 'to', 'status', 'from_date', 'to_date', 'limit', or 'offset' from this definition.
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 ('List') and resource ('emails') and provides the endpoint. It clearly implies a collection operation distinct from getEmailsById, though it does not explicitly name any sibling alternative.
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 given about when to use this tool versus other list/get siblings. 'List emails' implies a purpose, but there are no conditions, exclusions, or alternative tool recommendations.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.