sendook-mcp

sendook_list_messages

Read-onlyIdempotent

List messages from a Sendook inbox, filtered by query, with subject, labels, and timestamps. Choose markdown or JSON output.

Instructions

List messages in a Sendook inbox.

Returns messages with subject, labels, and timestamps. Use the query parameter to filter messages by content or metadata.

Args: params: ListMessagesInput containing: - inbox_id: Inbox to list messages from - query: Optional filter expression - limit: Maximum messages to return (default 20) - response_format: 'markdown' or 'json'

Returns: str: List of messages in requested format

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "params": "<params>"
    },
    "name": "sendook_list_messages"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`params`	Yes

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`result`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.0.0Jun 7, 2026

TDQS

A3.7/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true. The description adds context about return content (subject, labels, timestamps) but no further behavioral details like rate limits or ordering.

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?

The description is concise with a purpose sentence, return info, and a bullet list of parameters. It front-loads the key action and avoids fluff.

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

Completeness4/5

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

Given the tool's moderate complexity (1 parameter object with 4 fields), annotations, and presence of an output schema, the description covers essential information. Missing pagination details but not critical.

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?

The description recaps the parameter names and briefly describes each, but the input schema already provides detailed descriptions (e.g., 'Inbox ID to list messages from'). The description adds minimal new value beyond organization.

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?

The description clearly states 'List messages in a Sendook inbox' with a specific verb and resource. It differentiates from sibling tools like sendook_get_message (single message) and sendook_list_threads (threads).

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

The description implies when to use (listing messages with optional filtering) but does not explicitly contrast with siblings or state when not to use, leaving the decision to the agent without clear guidance.

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

Deploy Server