mcp-template

inbox_search

Search recent inbox threads headlessly for triage, returning summaries annotated by ledger status so agents can identify uncurated or stale emails and skip curated ones.

Instructions

Search recent inbox threads headlessly (no UI) when doing a thorough triage pass - use this to actually look at many emails. Returns thread summaries (subject, sender, snippet, recency) each annotated with its ledger status: 'uncurated' / 'stale' threads are the delta worth reasoning about; 'curated' threads are already banked and can be skipped. Uncurated threads also carry a provisional heuristic importance_prior. Pass since_history_id (from a prior result's current_history_id) to fetch only changed threads. After reasoning over the results, bank your verdicts with inbox_save_curation.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`limit`	No
`query`	No
`user_id`	No
`since_history_id`	No

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`items`	Yes
`current_history_id`	No	The mailbox's latest historyId, to pass as a future watermark.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.1Oct 19, 2026

TDQS

A4/5.0

Behavior4/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It discloses that results are annotated with ledger status (uncurated/stale/curated) and provisional importance_prior, and that since_history_id fetches only changes. No destructive behavior implied.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Single paragraph of 4-5 sentences, front-loaded with purpose. No fluff, but could be structured slightly better with parameter details.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness3/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Fairly complete for a search tool: explains output structure, usage pattern. Missing details on query syntax, limit max, or user_id effect. Output schema presence helps but doesn't excuse all gaps.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 0%, so description must compensate. It explains since_history_id well but says little about limit, query, or user_id. While output schema exists, input parameter documentation is incomplete beyond that.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

Description explicitly states the tool searches recent inbox threads headlessly for thorough triage, distinguishing it from sibling tools like gmail_get_thread or inbox_save_curation by specifying the use case and mode.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Provides clear context for when to use (thorough triage) and how to use (pass since_history_id for incremental fetch, then bank verdicts with inbox_save_curation). Lacks explicit 'when not to use' but context is strong.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Deploy Server