inbox_getRetrieve a specific inbox by ID to view its type, name, connected account, signature, health, and activation state. Use to inspect or manage an inbox.
Get one inbox by id: type, name, connected account or mail server, signature, health and activation state.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| inboxId | Yes | The inbox id (see inbox_list). | |
| organizationId | Yes | The organization id. Use organization_list to find it. |
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, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds value by enumerating the returned fields in the absence of an output schema, but says nothing about behavior on a missing/invalid id.
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 dense sentence with the resource and id constraint front-loaded and zero filler. The trailing field list is informative rather than wasteful, though it is the only thing keeping this from being maximally tight.
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 two-parameter read tool with full annotation coverage, the description is nearly sufficient: it names the return fields, which matters since no output schema exists. Only the absence of any error/not-found behavior or sibling routing keeps it short of complete.
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% and both parameters are required and self-documented, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no syntax, format, or lookup detail beyond what the schema already provides.
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 ('Get one inbox by id') and enumerates the fields surfaced (type, name, connected account, signature, health, activation state). It clearly reads as a singular-fetch counterpart to inbox_list, though it never names that sibling explicitly.
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 gives no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no routing to alternatives like inbox_list or inbox_statistics. The only hint ('see inbox_list') lives in the schema, not the description, so an agent gets no selection help here.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.