Batch set read or unread status for up to 50 email identities in one IMAP operation.
Set one read state for 1-50 identities.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| read | Yes | ||
| identities | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.11.0Output schema / $defs / BatchFlagChangeOutput / properties / error / anyOfPrevious value: -[
- {
- "type": "string"
- },
- {
- "type": "null"
- }
-]New value: +[
+ {
+ "$ref": "#/$defs/SafeErrorOutput"
+ },
+ {
+ "type": "null"
+ }
+]Output schema / $defs / BatchFlagChangeOutput / properties / error / titleRemoved value: -"Error"Output schema / $defs / SafeErrorOutputAdded value: +{
+ "properties": {
+ "code": {
+ "enum": [
+ "partial_move",
+ "permission_denied",
+ "not_found",
+ "invalid_request",
+ "timeout",
+ "rate_limited",
+ "draft_busy",
+ "recovery_required",
+ "imap_error",
+ "connection_error",
+ "broker_error",
+ "outcome_unknown"
+ ],
+ "title": "Code",
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "message": {
+ "title": "Message",
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "reason": {
+ "anyOf": [
+ {
+ "enum": [
+ "task_rate",
+ "session_queue_timeout",
+ "imap_worker_capacity",
+ "ipc_helper_capacity",
+ "request_deadline",
+ "transport_loss"
+ ],
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ {
+ "type": "null"
+ }
+ ],
+ "title": "Reason"
+ },
+ "retry_after_seconds": {
+ "anyOf": [
+ {
+ "type": "integer"
+ },
+ {
+ "type": "null"
+ }
+ ],
+ "title": "Retry After Seconds"
+ },
+ "scope": {
+ "enum": [
+ "request",
+ "item",
+ "account",
+ "broker",
+ "client"
+ ],
+ "title": "Scope",
+ "type": "string"
+ }
+ },
+ "required": [
+ "code",
+ "message",
+ "scope",
+ "reason",
+ "retry_after_seconds"
+ ],
+ "title": "SafeErrorOutput",
+ "type": "object"
+}v0.1.4Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, and idempotentHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds no behavioral context beyond the batch-size limit, which is acceptable given annotation coverage but not additive.
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 entire description is one short sentence that immediately states the action, resource, and batch scope. There is no redundant or filler 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?
The schema and annotations cover parameter structure and behavioral safety, and the description supplies the batch-size limit, making the tool callable in principle. However, it lacks explicit usage guidance and does not articulate the read boolean's meaning beyond the schema, leaving modest gaps for an agent.
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 0%, and the description does not compensate: it mentions 'read state' and 'identities' but does not explain the boolean 'read' parameter or the required IdentityOutput fields (account_id, mailbox, uid_validity, uid). An agent would need to infer the full parameter shape from the schema alone.
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 uses a specific verb ('Set') with a clear resource ('read state') and scope ('1-50 identities'), and the batch qualifier distinguishes it from the singular set_read_state sibling. An agent can infer exactly what operation this performs.
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 '1-50 identities' range clearly describes the intended batching context, distinguishing it from the singular set_read_state sibling. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or mention alternatives by name.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.