inbox_testTest an inbox connection to its mail, Meta, Google, or Apple platform and report whether it succeeds.
Test the connection of an inbox to its platform (mail server, Meta, Google, Apple, ...) and report the result.
| 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, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description usefully adds that this reaches an external platform (openWorld) and reports a result, but says nothing about failure/timeout behavior or what the reported result contains.
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 the action and scope stated immediately. No filler.
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 two-parameter diagnostic tool with no output schema, the description covers what it does but not what a pass/fail result looks like or common failure causes, which is the main thing an agent would want when interpreting the response.
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%, with inboxId pointing to inbox_list and organizationId pointing to organization_list, so the schema fully documents both parameters. The description adds no parameter meaning beyond that; baseline 3 applies.
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 ('test') and resource (an inbox's connection to its platform), plus the platform types involved. It is clearly distinguishable from siblings like inbox_get or inbox_refresh, though it never names them 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?
Usage is implied by the verb — you call this to verify connectivity — but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance or comparison to adjacent tools such as inbox_refresh or webhook_test.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.