Retrieve a complete list of mailboxes associated with a specified mail hosting ID.
List every mailbox on a given mail hosting.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| mail_hosting_id | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| mail_hosting_id | Yes | ||
| count | Yes | ||
| mailboxes | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.1Output schema / properties / mailboxes / items / properties / type / anyOfAdded value: +[
+ {
+ "type": [
+ "string",
+ "number"
+ ]
+ },
+ {
+ "type": "null"
+ }
+]Output schema / properties / mailboxes / items / properties / type / typeRemoved value: -"string"v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the specific scope ('every mailbox on a given mail hosting') which is useful behavioral context. No contradictions; no additional limitations or side effects are mentioned but none are necessary for a simple list operation.
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 a single clear sentence that is front-loaded and free of filler. It conveys all necessary information in the most concise way possible.
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 tool is very simple with one parameter and an output schema that likely defines mailbox structure. The description is sufficient for a straightforward list operation, though it could have mentioned that the mail_hosting_id comes from list_mail_hostings. However, given the output schema and annotations, this is a minor gap.
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% for the only parameter (mail_hosting_id). The description only says 'given mail hosting,' which vaguely refers to the parameter but does not explain what the ID is, how to find it, or its format. With zero schema descriptions, this is insufficient compensation.
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 ('List') with a clear resource ('every mailbox') and a scope ('on a given mail hosting'). It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like list_mail_hostings (which lists hostings) and get_mailbox_info (which gets a single mailbox).
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 implies the tool should be used when you have a mail hosting and need all mailboxes, but it does not explicitly state when to use it vs alternatives or any exclusions. It lacks the explicit alternative naming seen in high-quality examples.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.