get_email_usageRetrieve disk usage in bytes for every mailbox on an MXroute account, sorted largest first, to identify storage-heavy mailboxes. Data refreshes hourly.
Returns disk usage in bytes for every mailbox on the account, largest first. Refreshed hourly by MXroute.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, so the bar is lower; the description still adds genuinely useful behavior beyond them — the 'largest first' ordering and the hourly refresh cadence from MXroute, which tells the agent how fresh the data is. It omits pagination/response-shape details.
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?
Two short sentences, zero waste, with the core result stated first and the freshness caveat second. Nothing is padded or redundant.
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?
No output schema exists, so the description must convey the return payload; it gives the unit (bytes), the coverage (every mailbox) and the sort order, which is enough to consume the result. It does not say what identifies each mailbox entry, a minor gap for a zero-parameter tool.
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 tool takes no parameters, so the baseline is 4; there is no parameter surface for the description to illuminate and it correctly does not invent one.
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?
Specific verb+resource: 'Returns disk usage in bytes for every mailbox on the account', with scope (all mailboxes, account-wide) and ordering (largest first). It does not, however, differentiate itself from the sibling get_quota, so the agent must infer which one to call.
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 reporting nature of the tool, but there is no explicit when-to-use versus the sibling get_quota or any stated prerequisite/permission context. Nothing misleading, but nothing that routes the agent either.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.