Re-runs Gmail inbox curation for the inbox reader app to refresh inbox results. Use it with limit, query, and user ID when updated results are needed.
Re-run gmail_curate_inbox (called by the inbox reader app).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | ||
| query | No | ||
| user_id | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| threads | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only says the tool re-runs a curation process, implying it may have side effects, but it does not detail what those effects are, what data is modified, or any required permissions.
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 extremely brief (one sentence), but it omits critical information. It is under-specified rather than efficiently concise, which reduces its helpfulness.
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?
Given the presence of three undocumented parameters, no annotations, and many sibling tools, the description is severely incomplete. It fails to explain parameter behavior, output, or how this tool fits into the broader workflow.
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 for three parameters, and the description adds no information about them. The agent must guess the meaning and usage of 'limit', 'query', and 'user_id' based solely on names.
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 action ('Re-run gmail_curate_inbox') which identifies the tool's purpose. However, it does not differentiate this tool from siblings like gmail_curate_inbox itself, and the meaning of 'curate' is ambiguous without additional context.
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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It mentions being called by an inbox reader app, but does not specify conditions, prerequisites, or when not to use it.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.